Tyler Hildebrand (Dalhousie University)
In this paper, I distinguish between different interpretations of best systems accounts of laws of nature. Some are metaphysical, providing a theory of the metaphysical nature of laws; others are epistemological, providing a theory of how scientists do (or should) discover the content of laws. Some systematize all particular matters of fact; others systematize only a subset of particular matters of fact, such as those facts constituting our evidence. Neither of these distinctions is entirely new, but together they can be put to good use. First, they help to clarify the epistemology of non-Humean theoretical entities. Second, they undermine claims to the effect that we have special epistemological access to Humean laws. Third, they help to explain why there is something of a stalemate between Humeans and non-Humeans.
