Regularity theories disconfirmed

a revamped argument and a wager

Patrick Cronin

pp. 4913-4933

in: Matteo Colombo, Raoul Gervais, Jan Sprenger (eds), Objectivity in science, Synthese 194 (12), 2017.

Abstract

Regularity theories of causation assert that causal or nomic notions are to be reduced into “mere” frequencies of particular, non-nomic, co-located qualities and matters of fact. In this essay, I present a critical exploration of Armstrong (1983) and Strawson’s (1989) explanatory arguments against regularity theories. The shortcomings of these older arguments for nomic realism are identified and a revamped version which is immune to such problems is outlined and defended. I argue that anti-realism suffers substantial disconfirmation due to its comparative inability to unify empirical regularities in the absence of any probabilistic counterweights. I also show that realist theories are much more probable than their anti-realist competitors both individually and in aggregate. This is shown to be the case with even the most humble of observational data. This revamped argument is Bayesian in character; it is immune to the criticisms of Beebee (2006), Everitt (1991), Loewer (1996), and van Fraassen (1985); and it is empiricist friendly to boot.