Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-br6xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T19:12:37.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laws and Dispositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Andreas Hüttemann
Andreas Hüttemann*
Affiliation:
Abteilung Philosophie, Universität Bielefeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laws are supposed to tell us how physical systems actually behave. The analysis of an important part of physical practice—abstraction—shows, however, that laws describe the behavior of physical systems under very special circumstances, namely when they are isolated. Nevertheless, laws are applied in cases of non-isolation as well. This practice requires an explanation. It is argued that one has to assume that physical systems have dispositions. I take these to be innocuous from an empiricist's standpoint because they can—at least in principle—be measured. Laws can be applied whenever such a disposition is present, they describe how the physical system would behave if the disposition were manifest.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 121 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Abteilung Philosophie, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany.

‡

I would like to thank M. Carrier, L. Röska-Hardy, and two anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.

References

Armstrong, David M. (1983), What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ashcroft, Neil W. and Mermin, N. David (1976), Solid State Physics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bohm, Arno (1986), Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1936), “Meaning and Testability”, Philosophy of Science 3: 420–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1966), Philosophical Foundations of Physics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1989), Nature's Capacities and their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1988), “Provisos: A Problem Concerning the Inferential Function of Theories”, in Salmon, Wesley C. and Grünbaum, Adolf (eds.), The Limits of Deductivism. Berkeley: University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
Joseph, Geoffrey (1980), “The many sciences and the one world”, Journal of Philosophy 77: 773–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), Counterfactuals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, Hugh (1971), The Matter of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, Hugh (1974), “In Defense of Dispositions”, Philosophical Review 83: 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, Paul and Rey, Georges (1995), “When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46: 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar