Bird reveals an important problem at the heart of Armstrong’s theory of laws of nature: to explain how a law necessitates its corresponding regularity, Armstrong is committed to a vicious regress. In his very brief response, Armstrong gestures towards an argument that, as he admits, is more of a “speculation.” Later, Barker and Smart argue that a very similar problem threatens Bird’s dispositional monist theory of laws of nature and he is committed to a similar vicious regress. In this paper, first, I construct Armstrong’s would-be argument in response to Bird. Second, I argue that his response makes his account of laws and natural properties incompatible with science. Finally, I argue that Armstrong’s strategy to address Bird’s criticism can be used, quite ironically, to defuse Barker and Smart’s argument against Bird.

伯德揭示了阿姆斯特朗自然法则理论的核心问题：为了解释法律如何需要其相应的规律性，阿姆斯特朗致力于恶性倒退。在他非常简短的回应中，阿姆斯特朗指出了一个论点，正如他所承认的那样，这更像是一种“推测”。后来，巴克和斯马特争辩说，一个非常相似的问题威胁着伯德关于自然法则的性格一元论，他致力于类似的恶性倒退。在本文中，首先，我构建了阿姆斯特朗的潜在论点以回应伯德。其次，我认为他的反应使他对法律和自然属性的解释与科学不相容。最后，我认为阿姆斯特朗解决伯德批评的策略可以用来化解巴克和斯马特反对伯德的论点，颇具讽刺意味。