Cvii (7): 333–359
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
LAWS and LAWLESSNESS Are There Laws of Nature of the Sort Discussed in Much Recent Metaphysics?
STEPHEN MUMFORD LAWS AND LAWLESSNESS ABSTRACT. I develop a metaphysical position that is both lawless and anti-Humean. The position is called realist lawlessness and contrasts with both Humean lawlessness and nomological realism – the claim that there are laws in nature. While the Humean view also allows no laws, realist lawlessness is not Humean because it accepts some necessary connections in nature between distinct properties. Realism about laws, on the other hand, faces a central dilemma. Either laws govern the behaviour of properties from the outside or from the inside. If the former, an unacceptable quidditist view of properties follows. But no plausible account of laws within properties can be developed that permits a governing role specifically for laws. I conclude in favour of eliminativism about laws. At the conceptual core, the notion of a law in nature is misleading. It is suggestive of an otherwise static world in need of animation. 1. INTRODUCTION: PRIMITIVISM, REDUCTIONISM AND ELIMINATIVISM Are there laws of nature of the sort discussed in much recent metaphysics?1 While these discussions tend to disagree over the nature of such laws, they have in common a commitment to laws being an ineliminable part of an adequate metaphysics for our world. In this paper, I challenge that assumption. The question with which I began can be recast in ways that puts emphasis on the issue of eliminability. Do laws of nature deliver some feature to the world that would otherwise be lacking? Could a world be just like ours if it didn’t have laws? Did God have to create laws once he had created all the other things, such as particulars and universals? And so on. -
Academic CV Vero
Giacomo Giannini Department of Philosophy, Durham University, 50 Old Elvet, DH1 3HN, United Kingdom [email protected], [email protected] Areas of Specialisation: Metaphysics. Areas of Competence: Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Logic and Language, Modern Philsosophy. EDUCATION PhD 2016-2020 Durham University Title of Dissertation: ‘Powers for Dispositionalism: A Metaphysical Ground for New Actualism’. Supervisors: Matthew Tugby, Stephen Mumford, and Anna Marmodoro. Viva passed with Minor Corrections. Examiners: Barbara Vetter (FU Berlin), Robin Hendry (Durham). MA Philosophy (Distinction) 2016 Università di Bologna. Title of Dissertation: ‘Truthmakers for Modal Claims’. Supervisors: Walter Cavini and Fabrice Correia (Université de Neuchâtel). BA Philosophy (Distinction) 2014 Università di Bologna Supervisor: Eva Picardi. PUBLICATIONS 2020 “Actualism minus Naturalism Equals Platonism?” co-authored with Matthew Tugby, Philosophical In- quiries, S.I. on Barbara Vetter’s Potentiality (OUP, 2015), 2020. Forthcoming “Formal Causes for Powers” co-authored with Stephen Mumford, to appear in Sandstad & Jansen (eds.) Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation, Routledge, 2020. Under Review “Powers, Processes, and Eternalism” (R&R, Erkenntnis) “New Powers for Dispositionalism” (R&R, Synthese) Work in Progress “Universals Cannot Be Manifestations of Powers” 1 “The Source of Independence and the Source of Necessity” “Can There Be a Fundamental Level in a Powerful World?” SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS 2019 Royal Institute of Philosophy Bursary. 2019 Durham Excellence in Learning and Teaching Award. 2016 ARHC - Northern Bridge Doctoral Training Partnership Doctoral Scholarship. 2015 University Award for Academic Excellence (Borsa di studio per merito) for the year 2013/14. 2014 University Award for Academic Excellence (Borsa di studio per merito) for the year 2012/13. -
Essentiality Without Necessity
Essentiality without Necessity Petter Sandstad Abstract It is widely accepted that if a property is essential then it is necessary. Against this I present numerous counterexamples from biology and chemistry, which fall into two groups: (I) A property is essential to a genus or species, yet some instances of this genus or species do not have this essential property. (II) A property is essential to a genus, yet some species of this genus do not have this essential property. I discuss and reject four minor objections. Then I discuss in depth whether a distinction between constitutive essence and consequential essence is able to handle these counterexamples. I conclude that this distinction is better put as one between (1) the essence, which is necessary, and (2) the essential properties, which are not formally necessary. An essence of an object X is the substantial universal expressed by its real definition. An object X has a property P essentially iff the property P is explanatory and non-trivial, and P follows from the essence of X. Keywords: essential properties, necessary properties, essence, exceptions Kripke, Putnam, and others defended the tenability of essentiality as de re necessity, orthodoxly analysed as something that is true of a thing in all possible worlds where it exists (cf. [27] for a historical survey). According to this modal view, a property is predicated essentially if and only if it is (physically) necessary. If an object X essentially has a property P, then it must have P in all possible worlds where X exists (i.e. it must be necessary). -
References Indrek Reiland Institut Jean Nicod Stephen Mumford And
Philosophical Review BOOK REVIEWS References Pautz, Adam. Forthcoming. “Propositions and Properties.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Reiland, Indrek. 2013. “Propositional Attitudes and Mental Acts.” Thought 1: 239–45. ———. n.d. “Predication and the Frege-Geach Problem.” Unpublished manuscript. Soames, Scott. 2014. “Cognitive Propositions.” In New Thinking about Propositions, ed. J. King, S. Soames, and J. Speaks, 91–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Indrek Reiland Institut Jean Nicod Philosophical Review, Vol. 126, No. 1, 2017 DOI 10.1215/00318108-3683712 Stephen Mumford and Matthew Tugby, eds., Metaphysics and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ix þ244 pp. Metaphysics of science, according to Stephen Mumford and Matthew Tugby, is “the metaphysical study of the aspects of reality, such as kindhood, lawhood, causal power, and causation, which impose order on the world and make our scientific disciplines possible ...and also the study of the metaphysical relation- ship between the various scientific disciplines” (14). The editors explicitly rule out such studies as the metaphysics of space, for instance, as mere “specific metaphysical debates as they arise within specific scientific sub-disciplines” (6), such as physics in this case. The core of the metaphysics of science, as they insist, consists solely of those Kantian issues of extreme generality that concern the very possibility of science. The editors seem to suggest that the consideration of these points, as a truly first philosophy, prior to any scientific work, does not require any detailed competence in actual science. And they appear confident that work on kindhood, lawhood, and the relation among the sciences by the first philosopher will not suffer the embarrassing fate of Kant’s a priori pronouncements on the metaphysics of space.1 It is from the armchair, then, that “core” metaphysicians of science proceed to divine the fundamental order of things. -
Curriculum Vitae
JOHN HAWTHORNE Updated October 2018 PERSONAL DETAILS: BORN: Birmingham, England May 25, 1964 ADDRESS: USC School of Philosophy 3709 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles CA 90089 EMAIL: [email protected] AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS Part of three person Templeton Award (with Yoaav Isaacs and Aron Wall) for two year project on fine-tuning. Fellow of British Academy (elected 2013) Visiting Fellowship, Australian National University (for Summer 2014) Project Leader of New Insights In Religious Epistemology, a three year project at Oxford funded by the Templeton Foundation (since 2012). Visiting Lecturership, University of Helsinki, 2012. Nelson Visiting Fellow, Michigan University, 2011. Centre for Study of Mind and Language Project at University of Oslo. Project Associate since 2009. Visting Fellowship at University of Oxford 2005. Visiting Astor Lecturer, Oxford 2004. Research Fellowship at Australian National University (1993-1995) Grant from Australian Research Council for work on Grammar of Meaning book, 1991- 1993. Dissertation Prize for best Dissertation at Syracuse University (1991) First Class Honors, University of Manchester (1985) ACADEMIC POSITIONS: 1 Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA (part-time 2013-July 2015, full time from July 2015). Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy, Magdalen College, Oxford, UK (2006 to July 2015) Professor of Philosophy (part-time), Princeton University (2009-2012) Professor, Rutgers University (2001-2006) Professor, Syracuse University (1996-2001) Assistant Professor, Arizona State University (1995-1996) Assistant Professor, University of New South Wales (1991-1995) EDUCATION: PhD. Syracuse University (1991) B.A. in Philosophy and Politics, University of Manchester (1985) 2 PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS Monographs Narrow Content (with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, Oxford University Press, 2018). -
Ebook-Mumford-Laws-In-Nature.Pdf
Laws in Nature What are the laws of nature? Do they control the actions and movements of the other things that exist in our world? Is there a sense in which such laws are real things? Both scientists and philosophers have been attracted by the view that the world contains laws of nature. It is such laws that dictate the behaviour of particulars, rather than any of those things’ intrinsic or internal forces. In this book Stephen Mumford argues against this popular view. He shows that no adequate account has been produced of what such laws in nature would be, or how they would perform the work that has been required of them. In their place, he argues that there are other necessary connections in nature that can do all the work for which we thought laws were needed. This book offers a holistic and connected account of reality in which the world’s elements do not need to be activated or controlled by laws. It is not possible that these elements behave other than they do. The world is more of a jigsaw than a mosaic: its pieces can form only one picture, and laws are no part of it. Stephen Mumford is Reader in Metaphysics in the Department of Philo- sophy at the University of Nottingham. He is the author of Dispositions (1998) and various papers in metaphysics. He is editor of Russell on Meta- physics (2003) and Powers by the late George Molnar (2003). Routledge studies in twentieth-century philosophy 1 The Story of Analytic Philosophy Plot and heroes Edited by Anat Biletzki and Anat Matar 2 Donald Davidson Truth, meaning and knowledge Edited by Urszula M. -
11 John Quiggin Expert Reportpdf
1 2 3 4 2 refereed journal articles, focusing primarily on risk analysis and environmental economics, among over 1000 academic and popular publications. My current ARC Federation Fellowship deals with the impact of Climate Change on the Murray-Darling Basin. My curriculum vitae is provided as Attachment 1. 2. Materials used in the preparation of this report include reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report (UK) and Garnaut Review, along with my own earlier research on the costs of climate change and the analysis of climate mitigation policy. For findings on the negative net value of coal-fired power, I have drawn on the work of Muller, N. Mendelsohn, R. and Nordhaus, W. (2011) Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (Attachment 3). Part I: Impacts of Climate Change 3. Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases have changed the global climate and will continue to do so in the future. 4. Research on the likely global impacts of climate change is summarised in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II, on Impacts and Adaptation. The primary areas of concern are: • Natural ecosystems • Effects on agriculture, forestry and fisheries • Effects of sea level rise • Health effects • Water supply • Risk of sudden and catastrophic change 5. The magnitude of these effects depends critically on the rate at which climate change takes place and the magnitude of the increase at the point when climate ultimately stabilises at a new equilibrium. -
The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, Pharmaceuticals and Intellectual Property
Risk & Sustainable Management Group Australian Public Policy Program Working Paper: P05#1 nd a p hi How to kill a country?: The US–Australia s ow l Free Trade Agreement, pharmaceuticals l e F and intellectual property on m i t a ht r de on. i e t F a r l John Quiggin i de e Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, University of Queensland ounc y_f r C h c ove r c a s e s di e / s R m n a a r i l a og r t pr us _ A nt a n a gr u/ by a d e t t c gov. e . j c r o r a . P uppor s w y r h w c r w / a ove / e c s p: s t i e R D ht Schools of Economics and Political Science University of Queensland Brisbane, 4072 [email protected] http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/rsmg This version: 13 Jan 2005 How to kill a country?: The US–Australia Free Trade Agreement, pharmaceuticals and intellectual property John Quiggin Australian Research Council Federation Fellow School of Economics and School of Political Science and International Studies University of Queensland EMAIL [email protected] PHONE + 61 7 3346 9646 FAX +61 7 3365 7299 http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin I thank Nancy Wallace and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and criticism. This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship. Keywords Pharmaceutical benefits scheme, intellectual property, US–Australia Free Trade Agreement JEL code I1 How to kill a country?: The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, pharmaceuticals and intellectual property In February 2004, the Australian government announced the successful conclusion of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. -
John Quiggin's Critique of Microeconomic Policy in Australia 201
Agenda, Volume 4, Number 2, 1997, pages 197-208 Irrational Expectations? John Quiggin’s Critique of Microeconomic Policy in Australia Fred Gruen John Quiggin, Great Expectations: Microeconomic Reform and Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1996 [IS is an important book. Its critique of microeconomic policy is rooted irly and squarely in mainstream economic theory. This distinguishes it om a great many tirades against so-called ‘economic rationalism’. It is also the first attempt by an able and informed economist to challenge the current con ventional wisdom in the Australian economic policy debate about the desirability of microeconomic reform. Many Australian economists have studied individual issues associated with such reforms. But their contributions are mostly scattered. Quig gin’s book provides the first overview of many key issues in the professional eco nomic debate. Quiggin, a professor of economics at James Cook University, does not argue in a political vacuum: as he writes, ‘it is, perhaps, impossible to undertake policy analysis in a way that is completely free of ideological preconceptions’ (p. 64). Quiggin’s particular view is that ‘the policy elite displays a clear consensus that microeconomic reform is both urgently needed and beneficial’ (p. viii); ‘the prob lem with the current Australian policy debate is not an excessive reliance on eco nomics but the substitution of dogmatic precommitment for objective analysis’ (p. ix)’. Primarily, ‘Economic policy is based on a combination of a prioritheory and an emotional rejection of the policies of the 1950s and 1960s’ (p. 5). Quiggin tries to differentiate his critique from the considerable amount of root-and-branch criti cisms of current economic policies that has been proffered by sociologists, political scientists and other social scientists: ‘much criticism of current economic policy is based on nostalgia for the “good old days” of full employment and rapid growth without any clear analysis of what made those “good old days” possible’ (p. -
Natures Metaphysics.Pdf
NATURE’S METAPHYSICS This page intentionally left blank Nature’s Metaphysics Laws and Properties by ALEXANDER BIRD CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York Alexander Bird 2007 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover -
EMG Workshop
CENTRE FOR APPLIED ECONOMIC RESEARCH Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation: Bridging the Disciplinary Divides 1-2 December 2005 Venue: Coogee Bay Hotel Conference and Function Centre [Corner of Coogee Bay Road & Arden Street, Coogee (Sydney) NSW 2034] The Centre for Applied Economic Research is hosting a multidisciplinary conference on salinity mitigation, supported by the Bureau of Rural Sciences and the Australian Research Council. Preliminary Program Thursday 1st December 8:30 Welcome tea and coffee. 9:00 R. Quentin Grafton (Australian National University) “National Markets Based Instruments Pilot Program” 9:45 Bob Farquharson (NSW Department of Primary Industries) “The Scope of Salinity Economics Research in NSW Department of Primary Industries” 10:30 Break 11:00 Rodney Keenan (University of Melbourne) “Approaches to Providing for Multiple Values and Functions from Forests in Australia” 11:45 Peter Ampt (UNSW) “Beyond salinity: The challenge of meeting regional NRM targets through systematic landscape change” 12:30 Lunch 1:30 TBC (Bureau of Rural Sciences) “Salinity Research at the Bureau of Rural Sciences” Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation 2:15 Tom Nordblom (NSW Department of Primary Industries) “Balancing Long-run Costs and Benefits of Salinity Management at the Catchment Level” 3:00 Break 3:30 Lata Gangadharan (University of Melbourne) “Salinity in Water Markets: Insights from Experiments” 4:15 John Rolfe (Central Queensland University) “Assessing the Potential Supply of Mitigation Actions from Landholders: Evidence from -
Risk & Sustainable Management Group Climate Change Working
Risk & Sustainable Management Group Climate Change Working Paper: C07#1 Stern and his critics on discounting and climate change by John Quiggin Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, University of Queensland ouncil Federation Fellowship ams/discovery_federation.htm Australian Research C http://www.arc.gov.au/grant_progr Research supported by an Schools of Economics and Political Science University of Queensland Brisbane, 4072 [email protected] http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/rsmg This version: 19 June, 2007 Stern and his critics on discounting and climate change John Quiggin Australian Research Council Federation Fellow School of Economics and School of Political Science and International Studies University of Queensland EMAIL [email protected] PHONE + 61 7 3346 9646 FAX +61 7 3365 7299 http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin I thank Terry Barker, Roger Jones and Nancy Wallace for helpful comments and criticism. This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship. Stern and his critics on discounting and climate change The Stern Review of the economics of climate change (Stern 2007) has had a substantial impact on public debate over policy responses to climate change. This is in part a matter of timing. Although economists have analyzed issues related to climate change for years, this discussion has been overshadowed by debate over scientific issues, initially among climate scientists and then, for much of the last decade, between scientists and political critics of climate science, primarily associated with US-based think tanks. Although disputes continue, serious debate about the reality of global warming has ended. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007a) has indicated, with more than 90 per cent probability, that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases were primarily responsible for observed and projected global warming.