Two Objections to NES

John Foster

in The Divine Lawmaker

Published in print January 2004 | ISBN: 9780199250592
Published online April 2004 | e-ISBN: 9780191600913 | DOI:
 Two Objections to NES

Show Summary Details


One way of objecting to NES would be to claim that, contrary to what the solution assumes, extensive regularities do not automatically call for explanation, and that when we have reached the level of those regularities that cannot be explained in terms of others, there are no grounds for thinking that there is anything that accounts for them. But this is not something that we are able to endorse when we focus in more detail on a hypothetical case of an extensive regularity obtaining for no reason. Another way of objecting to NES would be to claim that, although it is rational to explain hitherto exemplified regularities by appeal to laws, we do not need to think of the laws as universal in scope, rather than restricted to some particular period or region or group of objects; and certain kinds of restriction would prevent our reaching any conclusions about the unexamined cases. But to postulate laws that are restricted in scope is much less plausible than postulating ones that are universal, since their obtaining would be inherently more puzzling.

Keywords: explanation; inference; laws; NES; puzzling; regularities; restricted; scope; universal

Chapter.  9188 words. 

Subjects: Philosophy of Religion

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.