Resumen de Stephen Mumford: Modalidad y legalidad
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.
