A Perspectivalist Better Best System Account of Lawhood. The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Carroll (ed.), Readings on Laws of Nature, pp. Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics, and the Laws of Nature. Ladyman, J., Ross, D., Spurrett, D., Collier, J. Why Defend Humean Supervenience? The Journal of Philosophy, 117(7), 387-406. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Are Non-Accidental Regularities a Cosmic Coincidence? Revisiting a Central Threat to Humean Laws. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71(2), 253-286. Part II: The Epistemological Argument for Humean Supervenience. Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience about Laws of Nature. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71(1), 1-22. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 70, 877-900. Towards a Best Predictive System Account of Laws of Nature. Es miembro fundador y ex-presidente (2016-2020) de la Sociedad Chilena de Filosofía de las Ciencias director del Grupo de Estudios de Filosofía de las Ciencias de la Universidad de Chile y coordinador del Magister en Filosofía de la Universidad de Chile.Ĭohen, J., Callender, C. del Centro de Filosofía de las Ciencias Naturales y Sociales, LSE, Inglaterra y del Centro de Filosofía Matemática de Múnich, LMU, Alemania. Además, ha sido investigador visitante del Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de Miami, EE. UU (2020), que tuvo que ser cancelada debido a la pandemia del SARS-COV-2. Obtuvo una estadía de investigación en el Centro de Filosofía de las Ciencias, Universidad de Pittsburgh, EE. Soto ha trabajado y publicado sobre pragmatismo clásico norteamericano (1870-1930) y filosofía natural de los siglos XVI-XVIII, supervisandotesis de pre y posgrado en estos temas. Su trabajo se concentra en filosofía de las ciencias y metafísica, particularmente metafísica de las ciencias, leyes de la naturaleza, realismo científico, pluralismo científico, empirismo y algunos argumentos en filosofía de las matemáticas. Anteriormente (2008-2011), el Dr. D. Stathis Psillos (Universidad de Atenas) en el comité de doctorado. Dr. James Ladyman(Universidad de Bristol) y el Prof. Dra. Dana Goswick (Universidad de Melbourne), el Prof. Dr.Howard Sankey (Universidad de Melbourne), con la Prof. This latter issue continues to represent a live challenge for empiricism in the philosophy of physical laws.Ĭristián Soto, Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de ChileĬristián Soto obtuvo su doctorado en filosofía en la Universidad de Melbourne, Australia (mayo 2016), bajo la supervisión del Prof. Lastly, we will argue that nomological Humeanism fails to provide a suitable notion of modality for laws of nature. We shall point out three limits of nomological Humeanism, which are widely recognized in the literature: its inadequacy in view of physical theories, its explanatory circularity, and its purported anthropomorphism, all of which advocates of nomological Humeanism have attempted to overcome Humeanism (Jaag y Loew 2020, Loewer 2004 y Massimi 2018). After briefly revisiting an early form of nomological Humeanism in Hume’s critique of the idea of necessary connection, this article critically examines Lewis’ two-fold approach based on Humean supervenience and the best system account. Nomological Humeanism has developed into a research program encompassing several variations on a single theme, namely, the view that laws are statements about regularities that we find in nature. Modality, supervenience, best system, necessity, contingency Abstract The second is that the points raised by Earman do not provide substantive reasons for doubting the adequacy of the causal theory to this task, because Earman insists in his extrapolations on a much closer relation between the empirical structure of events and the mathematical structures that model it than ought to be assumed.Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de Chile The first is that the causal theory, after its success vis-à-vis the STR, must now provide a detailed analysis of spatiotemporal concepts in the GTR. This captures in a nutshell my own conclusions. But moreover, Earman's transition from (C) to (1) assumes what we do not grant: that events are causally connectible exactly if the points in the mathematical space-time at which they are located are linked by a causal curve. The answer will be clear from the preceding: the exact definitions and principles of the exact theories we have displayed are to be discussed with reference to the special and not the general theory of relativity. I have so far ignored Earman's Section IV in which spatiotemporal coincidence is discussed.
0 kommentar(er)
