Leibniz on the laws of nature and the best deductive system

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (4):577-584 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many philosophers who do not analyze laws of nature as the axioms and theorems of the best deductive systems nevertheless believe that membership in those systems is evidence for being a law. This raises the question, “If the best systems analysis fails, what explains the fact that being a member of the best systems is evidence for being a law?” In this essay I answer this question on behalf of Leibniz. I argue that although Leibniz’s philosophy of laws is inconsistent with the best systems analysis, his philosophy of nature’s perfection enables him to explain why membership in the best systems is evidence for being a law of nature.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,865

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-27

Downloads
180 (#133,405)

6 months
11 (#338,628)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joshua L. Watson
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Humean Supervenience Debugged.David Lewis - 1994 - Mind 103 (412):473--490.
The nature of laws.Michael Tooley - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (4):667-98.
The Humean tradition.John Carroll - 1990 - Philosophical Review 99 (2):185-219.
Compossibility, harmony, and perfection in Leibniz.Gregory Brown - 1987 - Philosophical Review 96 (2):173-203.

View all 8 references / Add more references