@article{Handfield2005-HANAAT,volume = {55},number = {220},abstract = {D. M. Armstrong has objected that the Dispositionalist theory of laws and properties is modally inverted, for it entails that properties are constituted by relations to non-actual possibilia. I contend that, if this objection succeeds against Dispositionalism, then Armstrong's nomic necessitation relation is also modally inverted. This shows that at least one of Armstrong's reasons for preferring a nomic necessitation theory is specious.},journal = {Philosophical Quarterly},author = {Toby Handfield},year = {2005},pages = {452--461},title = {Armstrong and the Modal Inversion of Dispositions}}@