Dictionary of Arguments

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

 
Author Item Summary Meta data
III 42/43
Confirmation/Armstrong: G are of all F: the refutation of the converse (a)Ga & Fa through ~Fa & Ga is no confirmation of the law - Tooley: from "it is a law that Fs are Gs" to "it is a law that ~Gs are ~Fs"? ((s) counter position) - Armstrong: only: "It is the case...": no negative universals - still, the law is an explanation of the observation of instances of the counter position - (s) more precisely: counter position avoided here by me, actually purely formally logic, by Armstrong) - Confirmation/Dretske: Converse an explanation.
III 46
Conjunction of two properties is only in positive cases a confirmation of the law - negative cases: merely confirmation of HG. I.e. a consequence of the law, but not the law itself.
III 102
Confirmation/Armstrong: not a circle: if the law applies, the observation is explained - therefore, teh observation confirms the existence of the law - Problem: ~ G"s that are ~F"s. (see above) - It is unclear whether they have confirmation power - proposal: 2nd order confirmation.


_____________
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.
The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.

Armstrong I
David M. Armstrong
Meaning and Communication, The Philosophical Review 80, 1971, pp. 427-447
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1979

Armstrong II (a)
David M. Armstrong
Dispositions as Categorical States
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

Armstrong II (b)
David M. Armstrong
Place’ s and Armstrong’ s Views Compared and Contrasted
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

Armstrong II (c)
David M. Armstrong
Reply to Martin
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

Armstrong II (d)
David M. Armstrong
Second Reply to Martin London New York 1996

Armstrong III
D. Armstrong
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983


Send Link
> Counter arguments against Armstrong

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   Z  



Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2018-12-10
Legal Notice   Contact   Data protection declaration