Próxima aparición
Artículos

O Argumento do Espelho e a Teoria dos Melhores Sistemas de Leis

PDF (Português (Brasil))
  • Pedro Merlussi,
  • Tobias Marconde
Pedro Merlussi
Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Tobias Marconde
Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1307

Publicado 2026-09-12

Cómo citar

Merlussi, P., & Marconde, T. (2026). O Argumento do Espelho e a Teoria dos Melhores Sistemas de Leis. Análisis Filosófico. https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1307
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Resumen

Há leis da natureza, e, se sim, o que são? De acordo com a influente teoria de Frank Ramsey e David Lewis, as leis existem e são generalizações que aparecem como axiomas de sistemas dedutivos que combinam da melhor forma simplicidade e força. Apesar de sua influência, uma das principais críticas que a teoria enfrenta é sua suposta incapacidade de mostrar como as leis “suportam” as condicionais contrafactuais. John Carroll apresentou uma das formulações mais precisas e influentes dessa objeção por meio do seu Argumento do Espelho. Neste artigo, apresentamos uma resposta ao Argumento do Espelho ainda inexplorada na literatura; nosso objetivo é mostrar que a teoria de Ramsey e Lewis pode explicar como as leis suportam as contrafactuais se as leis forem entendidas como ceteris paribus.

PDF (Português (Brasil))

Citas

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1983). What is a law of nature. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Beebee, H. (2000). The nongoverning conception of laws of nature. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61(3), 571-594. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653613
  3. Bird, A. (2005). The dispositionalist conception of laws. Foundations of Science, 10, 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-004-5259-9
  4. Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s metaphysics: Laws and properties. Oxford University Press.
  5. Borge, B. (2020). Realismo científico y leyes de la naturaleza: De la filosofía general de la ciencia a la metafísica de la ciencia. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 20(40), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v20i40.3229
  6. Carroll, J. W. (1994). Laws of nature. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cartwright, N. (1987). Philosophical problems of quantum theory: The response of American physicists. Em L. Krüger, G. Gigerenzer, & M. Morgan (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution (pp. 417-435). Bradford Books.
  8. Cartwright, N. (2019). Nature, the artful modeler: Lectures on laws, science, how nature arranges the world and how we can arrange it better. Open Court.
  9. Cartwright, N., & Merlussi, P. (2018). Are laws of nature consistent with contingency? Em W. Ott & L. Patton (Eds.), Laws of nature (pp. 221-244). Oxford University Press.
  10. Cohen, J., & Callender, C. (2009). A better best systems account of lawhood. Philosophical Studies, 145, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9389-3
  11. Demarest, H. (2017). Powerful properties, powerless laws. Em J. Jacobs (Ed.), Putting powers to work: Causal powers in contemporary metaphysics (pp. 38-53). Oxford University Press.
  12. Earman, J. (1978). The universality of laws. Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1086/288795
  13. Earman, J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Reidel.
  14. Ellis, B. (2002). The philosophy of nature. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  15. Gendler, T., & Hawthorne J. (2002). Conceivability and possibility. Claredon Press.
  16. Hermes, C. (2004). Two concepts of nomic accessibility. Southwest Philosophy Review, 20(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.5840/swphilreview200420231
  17. Hicks, M. T., & van Elswyk, P. (2015). Humean laws and circular explanation. Philosophical Studies, 172(2), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0310-3
  18. Kimpton-Nye, S. (2017). Humean laws in an unHumean world. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2017.19
  19. Lange, M. (2000). Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford University Press
  20. Lange, M. (2009). Laws and lawmakers: Science, metaphysics, and the laws of nature. Oxford University Press.
  21. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press.
  22. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13(4), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215339
  23. Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical Papers II. Oxford University Press.
  24. Loewer, B. (1996). Humean supervenience. Philosophical Topics, 24(1), 101-127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43154224
  25. Loewer, B. (2012). Two accounts of laws and time. Philosophical Studies, 160(1), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9911-x
  26. Marshall, D. (2015). Humean laws and explanation. Philosophical Studies, 172(12), 3145-3165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0462-9
  27. Massimi, M. (2018). A perspectivalist better best system account of lawhood. Em W. Ott & L. Patton (Eds.), Laws of nature (pp. 139-157). Oxford University Press.
  28. Merlussi, P. (2016). Determinism, laws of nature and the consequence argument. Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia, 39(1), 74-95. https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8646148
  29. Merlussi, P. (2022). Revisiting McKay and Johnson’s counterexample to (β). Philosophical Explorations, 25(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2022.2034917
  30. Merlussi, P. (2024). The consequence argument and the possibility of the laws of nature being violated. Philosophia, 52, 247-259.
  31. Quine, W. V. O. (1970). Philosophy of logic. Harvard University Press.
  32. Ramsey, F. P. (1978). Foundations: Essays in philosophy, logic, mathematics and economics. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  33. Schrenk, M. (2014). Better best systems and the issue of CP-laws. Erkenntnis, 79(Suppl. 10), 1787-1799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9642-9
  34. Soto, C. (2024). Leyes de la naturaleza: Historia, filosofía y ciencias. Tecnos.
  35. Tooley, M. (1977). The nature of law. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(4), 667-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1977.10716190
  36. van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Clarendon.