Number of the records: 1  

Are non-accidental regularities a cosmic coincidence? Revisiting a central threat to Humean laws

  1. 1.
    SYSNO ASEP0545130
    Document TypeJ - Journal Article
    R&D Document TypeJournal Article
    Subsidiary JČlánek ve WOS
    TitleAre non-accidental regularities a cosmic coincidence? Revisiting a central threat to Humean laws
    Author(s) Filomeno, Aldo (FLU-F)
    Source TitleSynthese. - : Springer - ISSN 0039-7857
    Roč. 198, č. 6 (2021), s. 5205-5227
    Number of pages23 s.
    Publication formPrint - P
    Languageeng - English
    CountryNL - Netherlands
    KeywordsHumean account of laws ; Best system account of laws ; Ignorance ; Principle of indifference ; Suspension of judgment ; Coincidences
    Subject RIVAA - Philosophy ; Religion
    OECD categoryPhilosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology
    Method of publishingLimited access
    Institutional supportFLU-F - RVO:67985955
    UT WOS000657791400013
    EID SCOPUS85074016980
    DOI10.1007/s11229-019-02397-1
    AnnotationIf the laws of nature are as the Humean believes, it is an unexplained cosmic coincidence that the actual Humean mosaic is as extremely regular as it is. This is a strong and well-known objection to the Humean account of laws. Yet, as reasonable as this objection may seem, it is nowadays sometimes dismissed. The reason: its unjustified implicit assignment of equiprobability to each possible Humean mosaic, that is, its assumption of the principle of indifference, which has been attacked on many grounds ever since it was first proposed. In place of equiprobability, recent formal models represent the doxastic state of total ignorance as suspension of judgment. In this paper I revisit the cosmic coincidence objection to Humean laws by assessing which doxastic state we should endorse. By focusing on specific features of our scenario I conclude that suspending judgment results in an unnecessarily weak doxastic state. First, I point out that recent literature in epistemology has provided independent justifications of the principle of indifference. Second, given that the argument is framed within a Humean metaphysics, it turns out that we are warranted to appeal to these justifications and assign a uniform and additive credence distribution among Humean mosaics. This leads us to conclude that, contrary to widespread opinion, we should not dismiss the cosmic coincidence objection to the Humean account of laws.
    WorkplaceInstitute of Philosophy
    ContactChlumská Simona, chlumska@flu.cas.cz ; Tichá Zuzana, asep@flu.cas.cz Tel: 221 183 360
    Year of Publishing2022
    Electronic addresshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02397-1
Number of the records: 1  

  This site uses cookies to make them easier to browse. Learn more about how we use cookies.