Books on Amazon
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.
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.
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.
AR II = Disp
D. M. Armstrong
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983