Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metaphysics, laws, and natural kinds: Minimalist approaches

Stephen Mumford and Matthew Tugby (eds): Metaphysics and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, vii+244pp, £40 HB

  • Essay Review
  • Published:
Metascience Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Note that Mumford (2012) examined the relationship between metaphysics and science. His views consistently favour the development of a maximalist metaphysics of science over a minimalist one. However, his distinction between armchair metaphysics and metaphysics of science becomes inevitably blurry. He claims, for instance, that a priori analytic metaphysicians believe that metaphysical theorising goes deeper than any other science in the knowledge of reality by merely exercising a priori reasoning. According to him, philosophers in this tradition address problems such as the nature of “substances, properties, changes, causes, possibilities, time, personal identity, nothingness, and emergence” (2012, p. 1). It suffices to say this in order to make my point clear: metaphysicians in this tradition endorse the view that the epistemic success of metaphysics goes beyond the achievement of empirical and theoretical scientific research, even though the history of both modern science and metaphysics deliver a good deal evidence for the contrary.

  2. This is a very insightful remark, since most traditional philosophical accounts of laws have overlooked this feature of scientific laws. There are, however, in the literature some brilliant exceptions, like Smart’s (1985) cosmic coincidence approach to laws.

References

  • Agassi, J. 1975. Science in flux. Dordrecht/Boston: Springer.

  • Agassi, J. 1996. The place of metaphysics in the historiography of science. Foundations of Physics 26(4): 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, David. 1999. The causal theory of properties: properties according to Shoemaker, Ellis and others. Philosophical Topics 26: 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Richard. 1991. Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies 61: 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The dappled world. A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupre, John. 1993. The disorder of things. Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esfeld, Michael. 2007. Metaphysics of science: between metaphysics and science. Grazer Philosophysche Studien 74: 199–213.

  • Giere, Ronald. 1999. Science without laws. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, James, Don Ross, David Spurret, and John Collier. 2007. Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, John. 2004. Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David. 1999. Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maudlin, Tim. 2007. The metaphysics within physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, Stephen. 2002. Laws in nature. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, Stephen. 2012. Metaphysics. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Laurie A. 2006. In defence of essentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 20: 333–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, Willard v. O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Quine, Willard v. O. 1969. Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Smart, Jack. 1985. Laws of nature and cosmic coincidences. The Philosophical Quarterly 35(140): 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, Cristian. 2013. Looking for a realist metaphysics of science. Metascience 22: 289–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, Cristian. 2014. The aim and scope of scientific metaphysics. Metascience 23: 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, Bas. 2002. The empirical stance. New Heaven/London: Yale University Press.

  • Wartofsky, Marx. 1967. Metaphysics as heuristic for science. In Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol. III, eds. R. Cohen, and M. Wartofsky, 123–172. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

  • Weinberg, Stephen. 1994. Dreams of a final theory. The scientist’s search for the ultimate laws of nature. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Unit 10, 159 Union Street, Brunswick West, VIC, 3055, Australia

    Cristian Soto

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Chile, Nunoa, RM, Chile

    Cristian Soto

Authors
  1. Cristian Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristian Soto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soto, C. Metaphysics, laws, and natural kinds: Minimalist approaches. Metascience 24, 321–331 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-014-9932-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-014-9932-5

Search

Navigation