Psychology Dictionary of Arguments

Home Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

Laws: A. Laws are rules created and enforced by governments to regulate behavior, protect people's rights, and promote order and justice in society. - B. Laws of nature are fundamental principles that describe how the universe works. They are universal and unchanging. - C. The status of laws in the individual sciences is controversial, since they may only describe regularities. See also Natural laws, Regularities, Principles.
Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

Author Concept Summary/Quotes Sources

Robert Nozick on Laws - Dictionary of Arguments

II 144
Law/Laws of Nature/LoN/Language/Interpretation/WittgensteinVsArmstrong/Nozick: laws cannot be formulated linguistically, because they can always be interpreted differently.
>Rule Following
, >Interpretation,
>Laws, >Laws of nature, >Laws/Armstrong, >L. Wittgenstein, >D. Armstrong.
II 145
Event/Law/LoN/Relation/Hume/Nozick: Hume: the relations between events are not logical. - The connection between the event and the law cannot be causal.
>Causality/Hume, >Causal laws, >Causal relation, >Events.
Another problem: logical connections have to be interpreted in turn.
>Logic, >Necessity, >de re necessity.
II 146
If the interpretation should be fixed, then the law should include something analogous to reflexive self reference. - This is mysterious itself.
Hence, we must not treat laws related with statements. - Because of Gödel there is probably not a "picture of all the facts" from which all factual statements can be derived.
Determinism/Nozick: therefore should not rely on derivability from causal laws.
>Derivation, >Derivability, >Determinism, >K. Gödel.
II 146
Law/fact/general/special/make true/Nozick: if a law is not treated as a quasi-statement but as a general fact, how can it make individual states true? - How can "make true" be a real relation between facts? Then it must be related to causality. Thereby, the problems would be repeated. - That laws should limit facts, only names the problem.
>Truth, >Description levels, >Levels/order.
II 147
If laws are mere descriptions, they explain nothing. - If they are to be mere conjunctions of events, then there is no fundamentality and no hierarchy.
But: Fundamental orders may be variously interpreted or axiomatized again.
>Order, >Facts, >World, >Totality.
II 148
Instead fundamental order: "organic unity".
Problem: this is not a justification. - Analogous to the artwork.
Problem: Justification needs again a fundamental order.
Possible Worlds with reflexive self-subsumption could be more coherent, than those without reflexivity.
>Possible worlds.
Then the question of why a particular statement applies, is repeated. - The problem of the relationship between facts and laws cannot be solved here.

Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments
The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.

No I
R. Nozick
Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981

R., Nozick
The Nature of Rationality 1994

Send Link
> Counter arguments against Nozick
> Counter arguments in relation to Laws

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Y   Z