Transitivity and Humeanism about Laws

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Andrej Jandrić, Radmila Jovanović Kozlowski
{"title":"Transitivity and Humeanism about Laws","authors":"Andrej Jandrić, Radmila Jovanović Kozlowski","doi":"10.52685/cjp.23.68.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Humeanism about laws has been famously accused of the explanatory circularity by David Armstrong and Tim Maudlin, since the Humean laws hold in virtue of their instances and, at the same time, scientifically explain those very instances. Barry Loewer argued that the circularity challenge rests on an equivocation: in his view, once the metaphysical explanation is properly distinguished from the scientific explanation, the circularity vanishes. However, Marc Lange restored the circularity by appealing to his transitivity principle, which connects the two types of explanation. Lange’s transitivity principle has been widely discussed and criticised in the literature. In view of counterexamples, Lange refi ned both the principle, by taking into account the contrastive nature of explanation, and the requirement of prohibition on self-explanation. Recently, Michael Hicks has developed a new strategy for defending Humeanism about laws from the refined circularity challenge, critically appealing to the contrastive nature of both explanations and meta-explanations. We will argue that his strategy fails.","PeriodicalId":43218,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52685/cjp.23.68.2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Humeanism about laws has been famously accused of the explanatory circularity by David Armstrong and Tim Maudlin, since the Humean laws hold in virtue of their instances and, at the same time, scientifically explain those very instances. Barry Loewer argued that the circularity challenge rests on an equivocation: in his view, once the metaphysical explanation is properly distinguished from the scientific explanation, the circularity vanishes. However, Marc Lange restored the circularity by appealing to his transitivity principle, which connects the two types of explanation. Lange’s transitivity principle has been widely discussed and criticised in the literature. In view of counterexamples, Lange refi ned both the principle, by taking into account the contrastive nature of explanation, and the requirement of prohibition on self-explanation. Recently, Michael Hicks has developed a new strategy for defending Humeanism about laws from the refined circularity challenge, critically appealing to the contrastive nature of both explanations and meta-explanations. We will argue that his strategy fails.
法律的及物性与人文主义
大卫·阿姆斯特朗(David Armstrong)和蒂姆·莫德林(Tim Maudlin)指责休谟主义的法律解释具有循环性,这是出了名的,因为休谟的法律既支持它们的实例,同时又科学地解释了这些实例。Barry Loewer认为,循环性挑战建立在一个模棱两可的基础上:在他看来,一旦形而上学的解释与科学的解释被恰当地区分开来,循环性就消失了。然而,马克·兰格通过他的及物性原理恢复了循环性,该原理将两种解释联系起来。兰格及物性原理在文献中受到了广泛的讨论和批评。针对反例,Lange考虑到解释的对比性和禁止自我解释的要求,对这一原则进行了改进。最近,迈克尔·希克斯(Michael Hicks)提出了一种新的策略,以捍卫人道主义的法律观,使其免受精致循环的挑战,批判性地诉诸于解释和元解释的对比性质。我们认为他的策略失败了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信