Scientific Essentialism defends the view that the fundamental laws of nature depend on the essential properties of the things on which they are said to operate, and are therefore not independent of them. These laws are not imposed upon the world by God, the forces of nature, or anything else, but rather are immanent in the world. Ellis argues that ours is a dynamic world consisting of more or less transient objects that are constantly interacting with each other, and whose identities depend on their roles in these processes. The laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, and consequently, there are necessary connections between events.
what if nancy cartwright never took a look? no, that's too mean: there's some good metaphysics in here, and a total picture which does threaten humeanism simply by being another option. i love the aside about neoclassical economics being hokum, as it confirms my biases neatly. i just don't chime with the basic intuitions which underwrite the picture (about intrinsicness and fundamentality)