Necessity in Nature

Necessity in Nature

Anaheed Najmzadeh

The qualities which should support a belief in necessity in nature rather expound its  poverty of benefits, reinforcing the argument for refraining from belief. Demonstrating the shortcomings of a belief in necessity are its insufficiency to be characterized as a naturalistic  belief, its equality with regularity in nature, and the disintegration of its unique ability to give God-like qualities to natural law. Arriving at a belief in necessity in nature through means of inference to the best explanation does not characterize belief in necessity as naturalistic since science does not use inference to the best explanation in a foundational way. It also can not be characterized as such due to its immaterial constituents that fail to satisfy Novick’s criteria for scientific law. Since no criteria exists that perceptibly distinguishes necessity from regularity, it  provides no more practical benefits for distinguishing between accidental regularities and laws than does a regularity view of laws of nature. Finally, because the elevated and God-like qualities it proposes to bestow on a law of nature do not actually come from its implication that laws of nature govern, a belief in necessity lacks any major benefits. Any further defense for a  belief in necessity in nature must be as strong as a scientist’s empirical evidence.