Foundations of Science

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 353–370 | Cite as

The Dispositionalist Conception of Laws


This paper sketches a dispositionalist conception of laws and shows how the dispositionalist should respond to certain objections. The view that properties are essentially dispositional is able to provide an account of laws that avoids the problems that face the two views of laws (the regularity and the contingent nomic necessitation views) that regard properties as categorical and laws as contingent. I discuss and reject the objections that (i) this view makes laws necessary whereas they are contingent; (ii) this view cannot account for certain kinds of laws of nature and their properties.


dispositions dispositionalism laws of nature natural necessity properties 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armstrong, D. 1983What is a Law of Nature?Cambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird, A. 1998Dispositions and AntidotesPhilosophical Quarterly48227234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird, A. 2001Necessarily, Salt Dissolves in WaterAnalysis61267274Google Scholar
  4. Bigelow, J., Ellis, B., Lierse, C. 1992TheWorld as One of a Kind: Natural Necessity and Laws of NatureBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science43371388Google Scholar
  5. Dretske, F. 1977Laws of NaturePhilosophy of Science44248268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, B., Lierse, C. 1994Dispositional EssentialismAustralasian Journal of Philosophy722745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, B. 2001Scienti.c EssentialismCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Fraassen, B. 1989Laws and SymmetryOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hempel, C. 1965Aspects of Scienti.c ExplanationTheFree PressNewYorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Katzav, J. 2004Dispositions and the Principle of Least ActionAnalysis64206214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kripke, S. 1980Naming and NecessityBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. 1973CounterfactualsBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Lipton, P. 1991Inference to the Best ExplanationRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, C. 1994Dispositions and ConditionalsPhilosophical Quarterly4418Google Scholar
  15. Mumford, S. 1998DispositionsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Mumford, S. 2004Laws in NatureRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruben, D.H. 1992Explaining ExplanationRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Schurz, G. 2001Pietroski and Rey on Ceteris Paribus LawsBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science52359370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shoemaker S. (1980). Causality and Properties in Identity, Cause, and Mind Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Tooley, M. 1977The Nature of LawsCanadian Journal of Philosophy7667698Google Scholar
  21. Weinberg, S. 1993Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of NatureVintageLondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity Of BristolBristolU.K

Personalised recommendations