Edmonds and Warburton: Philosophy Bites Again
Edmonds and Warburton: Philosophy Bites
Edmonds and Warburton: Philosophy Bites Back
Your email address:Powered by FeedBlitz
« Nigel Warburton at the Oxford Playhouse, 11th Feb. 2011 |
| Philip Pettit on Group Agency »
What is a law of nature? Just a generalisation from experience? Or something different? Helen Beebee investigates these questions in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.
Philosophy Bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy.
Listen to Helen Beebee on Laws of Nature
Posted at 11:06 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516cc769e20148c66d693e970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Helen Beebee on Laws of Nature:
My view is that "laws of nature" in this context are more easily sorted out if you use "lawfulness" and to this you still need your thoughts to come in a row and life be allowed to live. It's also a recommendation of mine that one doesn't mix "laws of nature" and what these laws of nature are supposed to be because it quickly gets incredibly complicated and one is still discussing the status of "laws of nature" in Phil. of Science as a separate them, thus underlining the complexity of this issue! Lastly it should be noted that Helen Beebee points to "necessary connections of nature" in a sentence that really takes out David Hume on this. Thanks for the podcast!
December 05, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Helen Beebee said: "We need to give some kind of an account of why it is that the laws of nature are the things we hold fixed when we engage in counterfactual reasoning, whereas the accidental generalisations we don't hold fixed."
Aren't all laws of nature deliberately designed this way ? Each one is the culmination of centuries of creative effort by many highly gifted individuals (Newton's "giants"), and has been crafted specially to be a general, abstract, time-invariant model of some part of reality in conjunction with other laws of nature designed by forebears in a similar way.
Comparing a law of nature to an accidental generalisation is like comparing the Eiffel Tower to a Lego house, or the Beethoven Ninth to a casual ditty.
March 26, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Helen Beebee said: "[...]things tick along in this nice regular way just is a brute fact about the universe. There's no explanation for why that should be the case."
The Anthropic Principle ?
March 31, 2011 at 02:41 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address
Nigel Warburton: Philosophy: The Basics
Nigel Warburton: A Little History of Philosophy
Nigel Warburton: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction
Nigel Warburton: The Basics of Essay Writing
Nigel Warburton: Thinking from A to Z
Nigel Warburton: Erno Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect
Nigel Warburton: Philosophy: The Essential Study Guide
Nigel Warburton: The Art Question
Nigel Warburton: Freedom: An Introduction with Readings
Nigel Warburton: Philosophy: The Classics
David Edmonds: Would You Kill the Fat Man?
David Edmonds: Caste Wars: The Philosophy of Discrimination
David Edmonds and John Eidinow: Rousseau's Dog: A Tale of Two Philosophers
David Edmonds and John Eidinow: Bobby Fischer Goes to War
David Edmonds and John Eidinow: Wittgenstein's Poker