Stephen Mumford: Modalidad y legalidad
- Autores: Nelida Gentile
- Localización: VII Conference of the Spanish Society for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 18-20 July 2012 / Sociedad de Lógica, Metodología y Filosofía de la Ciencia en España (aut.), Concepción Martínez Vidal (dir. congr.), José L. Falguera López (dir. congr.), José Miguel Sagüillo Fernández-Vega (dir. congr.), Víctor Martín Verdejo Aparicio (dir. congr.), Martín Pereira Fariña (dir. congr.), 2012, ISBN 978-84-9887-939-1, págs. 876-882
- Idioma: español
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Stephen Mumford makes a reconstruction of the so-called "nomological argument" in favor of natural laws and then formulates a dilemma in order to refute that argument. The nomological argument takes the form of an inference to the best explanation which postulates the existence of necessary connections - which are identified with the laws of nature -as the foundation of the regularities or patterns in the world. Against the existence of laws in nature, Mumford defends a modal realism based on the dispositions or causal powers: there are necessary connections but there are no laws. This paper will show that the Mumford´s suggestion only amounts to rephrasing the debate: rather than refute the nomological argument he maintains its structure and simply modifies the conclusion. As a consequence, the darts that Mumford threw against nomological realism reach the target of his own modal realism.
