[lit-ideas] The principle of the uniformity of nature

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:34:32 -0500

In a message dated 2/20/2015 2:02:16 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time,  
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Popper's  account throws some light on these  issues. Rather than speak of  
"causal laws" etc. [laws do not cause anything  except in the presence  of 
initial conditions and may exist without actually  causing  anything], P 
the term "natural laws" to refer to laws of nature.   

Oddly, and nicely coincidental, an author that J. L. Scherb quotes  in  his 
essay, [translated, "Does the Nothing really noth?"] quotes  from Friedman  
who co-authored the below:

De Pierris, G. and  Friedman, M., "Kant and Hume on Causality", The 
Encyclopedia of  Philosophy  (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  
URL =  

"[S]ince particular causal relations, for Kant, necessarily  involve  
laws, all of our inferences from particular perceptions  to universal  
causal laws of nature are grounded in synthetic a priori  principles of 
understanding providing a synthetic a priori  conception of the unity and  
UNIFORMITY OF NATURE in general. Hume was  correct, therefore, that THE  
OF THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE  governs all of our inductive causal  
and he was also  correct that this principle is not and cannot be  analytic 
a  priori."

Indeed, the keyword here would be what Grice calls  "PHILOSOPHICAL  
ESCHATOLOGY", a branch of metaphysics.  


To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: