Laws of Nature” as an Indexical Term
A Reinterpretation of Lewis's Best-System Analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10705236 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John M Roberts (0000-0003-3146-7853, University of Pittsburgh, corresponding author), John Roberts (0000-0002-0059-430X) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 66 |
| Issue | S3 |
| Pages | S502-S511 |
| Publication date | 1999-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8248 • E-ISSN: 1539-767X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1086/392748 |
| OpenAlex | W2036738511 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 8 |
David Lewis's best-system analysis of laws of nature is perhaps the best known sophisticated regularity theory of laws. Its strengths are widely recognized, even by some of its ablest critics. Yet it suffers from what appears to be a glaring weakness: It seems to grant an arbitrary privilege to the standards of our own scientific culture. I argue that by reformulating, or reinterpreting, Lewis's exposition of the best-system analysis, we arrive at a view that is free of this weakness. The resulting theory of laws has the surprising consequence that the term “law of nature” is indexical
Aesthetics · Epistemology · Exposition (narrative) · Indexicality · Law and economics · Literature · Political science · Privilege (computing) · Reinterpretation · Sociology · Term (time) · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,3 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2023 (18) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |