Lexicon of Arguments

 Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
III 84f
Relations/Order/Stages/Universals/Armstrong: Laws of Nature are a second order relation between universals.
If it is a law of nature that Fs are Gs: between F-ness and G-ness: non-logical, contingent necessity Notation: N(F,G) it follows: (x)(Fx>Gx), but not vice versa (also simple regularity without necessity possible).
Lewis: if two universals are in relation and this relation is in relation to a regularity, then there is a link to this regularity. - This second link is an entailment.
Question: is regularity part of the relation? Then it is a surplus above the regularity.
Form: (P&Q)>P(P = regularity).
Alternative: P>(PvQ): Armstrong pro. But how can that be forced into the form N(F,G)>(x)(Fx>Gx)?
- - -
Martin II 128
Logical relations: cannot exist between separate entities - causal relations: only between separate ones.
Martin II 133
Armstrong: this principle results, in turn, from the idea that absolute necessity arises only from identity - MartinVs: here you must keep a close eye on the range of the examples. >Natural laws, >Regularities.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.