Summary |
Next to the
ontological status of laws of nature, their linguistic representation can be of
interest. Questions regarding law statements include which logical features are
characteristic of law statements (universal quantification, conditional
statements, material vs. counterfactual conditionals, modal operators… etc.),
whether there even is such a thing as a general common form of such statements,
whether there is always or even essentially a mathematic form, differential
equations for example, what distinguishes statements of laws from accidental
generalizations, and so forth.
These
questions relate, in particular, to the “lawlikeness”-debate that dates back to
logical empiricism, whose proponents focused on language analysis as the
central method to solve philosophical problems. The guiding idea to define what
a law of nature is was, for example, to split the problem into two parts:
first, say what necessary and sufficient features statements, i.e., linguistic
entities, must have in order to be counted as expressions of laws. Call those
statements that fulfill the criteria -- like universality, containing only
natural predicates, having conditional form, etc. -- "lawlike". Then,
second, say that a law of nature (the ultimate target of the enquiry) is a true
lawlike statement. Thus, overall, there are two separate tasks to tackle: find
criteria for lawlikeness, then find out whether the respective statements are
true (the latter task leads straight into conformation theory and its problems;
see philpapers for confirmation). It should be said that no necessary or
sufficient set of pure syntactic nor semantic criteria could ever be given.
|