International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (1):85 – 101 (1995)
|Abstract||Abstract In the philosophical literature, there are two common criteria for a physical theory to be deterministic. The older one is due to the logical empiricists, and is a purely formal criterion. The newer one can be found in the work of John Earman and David Lewis and depends on the intended interpretation of the theory. In this paper I argue that the former must be rejected, and something like the latter adopted. I then discuss the relevance of these points to the current debate over the hole argument|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barbara Hannan & Keith Lehrer (1989). Compatibilism, Determinism, and the Identity Theory. Inquiry 32 (March):49-54.
Roger Jones (1990). Determinism in Deterministic Chaos. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:537 - 549.
Jeremy Butterfield (1988). Albert Einstein Meets David Lewis. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:65 - 81.
Michael A. Slote (1969). Free Will, Determinism, and the Theory of Important Criteria. Inquiry 12 (1-4):317-38.
J. Melia (1999). Holes, Haecceitism and Two Conceptions of Determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
Stephen Leeds (1995). Holes and Determinism: Another Look. Philosophy of Science 62 (3):425-437.
Carolyn Brighouse (1997). Determinism and Modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):465-481.
Gordon Belot (1995). New Work for Counterpart Theorists: Determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):185-195.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,281 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?