My view is that "laws of nature" in this context are more easily sorted out if you use "lawfulness" and to this you still need your thoughts to come in a row and life be allowed to live. It's also a recommendation of mine that one doesn't mix "laws of nature" and what these laws of nature are supposed to be because it quickly gets incredibly complicated and one is still discussing the status of "laws of nature" in Phil. of Science as a separate them, thus underlining the complexity of this issue! Lastly it should be noted that Helen Beebee points to "necessary connections of nature" in a sentence that really takes out David Hume on this. Thanks for the podcast!

Thanks for the podcasts! I enjoy them a lot. However, I'm very dissatisfied with the failure of Jonathan Wolff to mention "The Modal Confusion in Rawls' Original Position" by the Levins in order to both contest the so-called superiority of Rawls' paper and to present the most powerful criticism of it. I think it's just as severe as not mentioning Plotinus' approach to the Problem of Evil when one discusses the Problem of Evil.