Scholarlink

<p>Recently, philosophers have argued that the laws of Lewis’s Best System Analysis (BSA) are not pragmatically useful. In this paper, I argue that these criticisms are substantive only because the BSA laws are characterized independently of their pragmatic roles. It is important to maintain the distinction between what the laws <i>are</i> and what the laws should <i>do</i> if we are to engage in the traditional, metaphysical debates found in the laws literature. While it is plausible that usefulness is an important criterion by which we judge the <i>success</i> of a Humean best system, I argue that we should not take usefulness to <i>constitute</i> a Humean best system. In response to the shortcomings of Lewis’s BSA, many authors have developed new “pragmatic” Humean best system accounts. I argue that these accounts are not characterized independently of the useful roles they are supposed to play for us. This leaves them vulnerable to objections that they may be stipulating the virtues they claim to explain, or they may fail to be Humean best system accounts at all.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How (not) to be a pragmatic Humean

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月10日

查看全文
  • Heather Demarest

摘要

Recently, philosophers have argued that the laws of Lewis’s Best System Analysis (BSA) are not pragmatically useful. In this paper, I argue that these criticisms are substantive only because the BSA laws are characterized independently of their pragmatic roles. It is important to maintain the distinction between what the laws are and what the laws should do if we are to engage in the traditional, metaphysical debates found in the laws literature. While it is plausible that usefulness is an important criterion by which we judge the success of a Humean best system, I argue that we should not take usefulness to constitute a Humean best system. In response to the shortcomings of Lewis’s BSA, many authors have developed new “pragmatic” Humean best system accounts. I argue that these accounts are not characterized independently of the useful roles they are supposed to play for us. This leaves them vulnerable to objections that they may be stipulating the virtues they claim to explain, or they may fail to be Humean best system accounts at all.