Search results for 'ceteris paribus laws' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Andreas Hüttemann (2014). Ceteris Paribus Laws in Physics. Erkenntnis 79 (10):1715-1728.
    Earman and Roberts claim that there is neither a persuasive account of the truth-conditions of ceteris paribus laws, nor of how such laws can be confirmed or disconfirmed. I will give an account of the truth conditions of ceteris paribus laws in physics in terms of dispositions. It will meet the objections standardly raised against such an account. Furthermore I will elucidate how ceteris paribus laws can be tested in physics. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  2. Geert Keil (2005). How the Ceteris Paribus Laws of Physics Lie. In Jan Faye, Paul Needham, Uwe Scheffler & Max Urchs (eds.), Nature's Principles. Springer 167-200.
    After a brief survey of the literature on ceteris paribus clauses and ceteris paribus laws (1), the problem of exceptions, which creates the need for cp laws, is discussed (2). It emerges that the so-called skeptical view of laws of nature does not apply to laws of any kind whatever. Only some laws of physics are plagued with exceptions, not THE laws (3). Cp clauses promise a remedy, which has to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  51
    Matthias Unterhuber (2014). Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis. Erkenntnis 79 (10):1833-1847.
    This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  4.  73
    Robert Kowalenko (2009). How (Not) to Think About Idealisation and Ceteris Paribus -Laws. Synthese 167 (1):183 - 201.
    Semantic dispositionalism is the theory that a speaker’s meaning something by a given linguistic symbol is determined by her dispositions to use the symbol in a certain way. According to an objection by Saul Kripke, further elaborated in Kusch (2005), semantic dispositionalism involves ceteris paribus-clauses and idealisations, such as unbounded memory, that deviate from standard scientific methodology. I argue that Kusch misrepresents both ceteris paribus-laws and idealisation, neither of which factually approximate the behaviour of agents (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5. Markus Schrenk (2007). Can Capacities Rescue Us From Ceteris Paribus Laws? In B. Gnassounou & M. Kistler (eds.), Dispositions in Philosophy and Science. Ashgate
    Many philosophers of science think that most laws of nature (even those of fundamental physics) are so called ceteris paribus laws, i.e., roughly speaking, laws with exceptions. Yet, the ceteris paribus clause of these laws is problematic. Amongst the more infamous difficulties is the danger that 'For all x: Fx ⊃ Gx, ceteris paribus' may state no more than a tautology: 'For all x: Fx ⊃ Gx, unless not'. One of (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6. Robert Kowalenko (2014). Ceteris Paribus Laws: A Naturalistic Account. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 28 (2):133-155.
    An otherwise lawlike generalisation hedged by a ceteris paribus (CP) clause qualifies as a law of nature, if the CP clause can be substituted with a set of conditions derived from the multivariate regression model used to interpret the empirical data in support of the gen- eralisation. Three studies in human biology that use regression analysis are surveyed, showing that standard objections to cashing out CP clauses in this way—based on alleged vagueness, vacuity, or lack of testability—do not (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  93
    Gerhard Schurz (2001). Pietroski and Rey on Ceteris Paribus Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):359Ð370.
    , Pietroski and Rey ([1995]) suggested a reconstruction of ceteris paribus (CP)-laws, which — as they claim — saves CP-laws from vacuity. This discussion note is intended to show that, although Pietroski and Rey's reconstruction is an improvement in comparison to previous suggestions, it cannot avoid the result that CP-laws are almost vacuous. It is proved that if Cx is an arbitrary (nomological) event-type which has independently identifiable deterministic causes, then for every other (nomological) event-type (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  8. Marcello Guarini (2000). Horgan and Tienson on Ceteris Paribus Laws. Philosophy of Science 67 (2):301-315.
    Terence Horgan and John Tienson claim that folk psychological laws are different in kind from basic physical laws in at least two ways: first, physical laws do not possess the kind of ceteris paribus qualifications possessed by folk psychological laws, which means the two types of laws have different logical forms; and second, applied physical laws are best thought of as being about an idealized world and folk psychological laws about the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Wolfgang Spohn (2002). Laws, Ceteris Paribus Conditions, and the Dynamics of Belief. Erkenntnis 57 (3):373-394.
    The characteristic difference between laws and accidental generalizations lies in our epistemic or inductive attitude towards them. This idea has taken various forms and dominated the discussion about lawlikeness in the last decades. Likewise, the issue about ceteris paribus conditions is essentially about how we epistemically deal with exceptions. Hence, ranking theory with its resources of defeasible reasoning seems ideally suited to explicate these points in a formal way. This is what the paper attempts to do. Thus (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  10.  62
    Markus Schrenk (2007). The Metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus Laws. Ontos.
    INTRODUCTION I. CETERIS PARIBUS LAWS An alleged law of nature—like Newton's law of gravitation—is said to be a ceteris paribus law if it does not hold under ...
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  11. G. Marcello (2000). Horgan and Tienson on Ceteris Paribus Laws. Philosophy of Science 67 (2):301-315.
  12. Paul M. Pietroski & Georges Rey (1995). When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws From Vacuity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (1):81-110.
    A common view is that ceteris paribus clauses render lawlike statements vacuous, unless such clauses can be explicitly reformulated as antecedents of ?real? laws that face no counterinstances. But such reformulations are rare; and they are not, we argue, to be expected in general. So we defend an alternative sufficient condition for the non-vacuity of ceteris paribus laws: roughly, any counterinstance of the law must be independently explicable, in a sense we make explicit. (...) paribus laws will carry a plethora of explanatory commitments; and claims that such commitments are satisfied will be as (dis) confirmable as other empirical claims. (shrink)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   53 citations  
  13. Alexander Reutlinger, Gerhard Schurz & Andreas Hüttemann, Ceteris Paribus Laws. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Laws of nature take center stage in philosophy of science. Laws are usually believed to stand in a tight conceptual relation to many important key concepts such as causation, explanation, confirmation, determinism, counterfactuals etc. Traditionally, philosophers of science have focused on physical laws, which were taken to be at least true, universal statements that support counterfactual claims. But, although this claim about laws might be true with respect to physics, laws in the special sciences (such (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  14.  55
    John Pemberton & Nancy Cartwright (2014). Ceteris Paribus Laws Need Machines to Generate Them. Erkenntnis 79 (10):1745-1758.
    Most of the regularities that get represented as ‘laws’ in our sciences arise from, and are to be found regularly associated with, the successful operation of a nomological machine. Reference to the nomological machine must be included in the cp-clause of a cp-law if the entire cp-claim is to be true. We agree, for example, ‘ceteris paribus aspirins cure headaches’, but insist that they can only do so when swallowed by someone with the right physiological makeup and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  15. Marc Lange (2002). Who's Afraid of Ceteris-Paribus Laws? Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 57 (3):281Ð301.
    Ceteris-paribus clauses are nothing to worry about; aceteris-paribus qualifier is not poisonously indeterminate in meaning. Ceteris-paribus laws teach us that a law need not be associated straightforwardly with a regularity in the manner demanded by regularity analyses of law and analyses of laws as relations among universals. This lesson enables us to understand the sense in which the laws of nature would have been no different under various counterfactual suppositions — a feature (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   25 citations  
  16.  43
    Gerhard Schurz (2002). Ceteris Paribus Laws: Classification and Deconstruction. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 57 (3):351Ð372.
    It has not been sufficiently considered in philosophical discussions of ceteris paribus (CP) laws that distinct kinds of CP-laws exist in science with rather different meanings. I distinguish between (1.) comparative CP-laws and (2.) exclusive CP-laws. There exist also mixed CP-laws, which contain a comparative and an exclusive CP-clause. Exclusive CP-laws may be either (2.1) definite, (2.2) indefinite or (2.3) normic. While CP-laws of kind (2.1) and (2.2) exhibit deductivistic behaviour, CP- (...) of kind (2.3) require a probabilistic or non-monotonic reconstruction. CP-laws of kind (1) may be both deductivistic or probabilistic. All these kinds of CP-laws have empirical content by which they are testable, except CP-laws of kind (2.2) which are almost vacuous. Typically, CP-laws of kind (1) express invariant correlations, CP-laws of kind (2.1) express closed system laws of physical sciences, and CP-laws of kind (2.3) express normic laws of non-physical sciences based on evolution-theoretic stability properties. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  17. Bernhard Nickel (2010). Ceteris Paribus Laws: Generics and Natural Kinds. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (06).
    Ceteris Paribus (cp-)laws may be said to hold only “other things equal,” signaling that their truth is compatible with a range of exceptions. This paper provides a new semantic account for some of the sentences used to state cp-laws. Its core approach is to relate these laws to natural language on the one hand — by arguing that cp-laws are most naturally expressed with generics — and to natural kinds on the other — by (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  18. Robert D. Rupert (2008). Ceteris Paribus Laws, Component Forces, and the Nature of Special-Science Properties. Noûs 42 (3):349-380.
    Laws of nature seem to take two forms. Fundamental physics discovers laws that hold without exception, ‘strict laws’, as they are sometimes called; even if some laws of fundamental physics are irreducibly probabilistic, the probabilistic relation is thought not to waver. In the nonfundamental, or special, sciences, matters differ. Laws of such sciences as psychology and economics hold only ceteris paribus – that is, when other things are equal. Sometimes events accord with these (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  19. Alice Drewery (2001). Dispositions and Ceteris Paribus Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):723-733.
    This paper discusses the relationship between dispositions and laws and the prospects for any analysis of talk of laws in terms of talk of dispositions. Recent attempts at such a reduction have often been motivated by the desire to give an account of ceteris paribus laws and in this they have had some success. However, such accounts differ as to whether they view dispositions as properties fundamentally of individuals or of kinds. I argue that if (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  20. Sheldon Smith (2002). Violated Laws, Ceteris Paribus Clauses, and Capacities. Synthese 130 (2):235-264.
    It is often claimed that the bulk of the laws of physics –including such venerable laws as Universal Gravitation– are violated in many (or even all) circumstances because they havecounter-instances that result when a system is not isolated fromother systems. Various accounts of how one should interpretthese (apparently) violated laws have been provided. In thispaper, I examine two accounts of (apparently) violated laws, thatthey are merely ceteris paribus laws and that they aremanifestations of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  21.  92
    Rui Silva (2012). Ceteris Paribus Laws and the Human Sciences. Disputatio 4 (34):851-867.
    Silva-Rui_Ceteris-paribus-laws-and-the-human-sciences.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Charles Wallis (1994). Ceteris Paribus Laws and Psychological Explanations. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:388-397.
    I argue that Fodor's analysis of ceteris paribus laws fails to underwrite his appeal to such laws in his sufficient conditions for representation. It also renders his appeal to ceteris paribus laws impotent against the major problem for his theory of representation. Finally, Fodor's analysis fails to provide useful solutions to the traditional problems associated with a thoroughgoing understanding of ceteris paribus clauses. The analysis, therefore, fails to bolster Fodor's position that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23. Nancy Cartwright (2002). In Favor of Laws That Are Not Ceteris Paribus After All. Erkenntnis 57 (3):425Ð439.
    Opponents of ceteris paribus laws are apt to complain that the laws are vague and untestable. Indeed, claims to this effect are made by Earman, Roberts and Smith in this volume. I argue that these kinds of claims rely on too narrow a view about what kinds of concepts we can and do regularly use in successful sciences and on too optimistic a view about the extent of application of even our most successful non-ceteris (...) laws. When it comes to testing, we test ceteris paribus laws in exactly the same way that we test laws without the ceteris paribus antecedent. But at least when the ceteris paribus antecedent is there we have an explicit acknowledgment of important procedures we must take in the design of the experiments — i.e., procedures to control for “all interferences” even those we cannot identify under the concepts of any known theory. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  24. Barry Ward (2009). Cartwright, Forces, and Ceteris Paribus Laws. Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):55-62.
    This paper proposes a novel response to Nancy Cartwright’s famous argument that fundamental physical laws, such as Newton’s law of gravitation, are ceteris paribus: construing forces instrumentally allows such laws to apply generally, eliminating the need for ceteris paribus clauses. The instrumental construal of forces is motivated, and defended against prominent recent objections. Further, it is argued that such instrumentalism in no way undermines the role of force-laws in scientific practise, and indeed, is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Robert D. Rupert (2007). Realization, Completers, and Ceteris Paribus Laws in Psychology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (1):1-11.
    University of Colorado, Boulder If there are laws of psychology, they would seem to hold only ceteris paribus (c.p., hereafter), i.e., other things being equal. If a person wants that q and believes that doing a is the most efficient way to make it the case that q, then she will attempt to do a—but not, however, if she believes that a carries with it consequences much more hated than q is liked, or she believes she is (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26.  29
    Markus Schrenk (2003). Real Ceteris Paribus Laws. In R. Bluhm & C. Nimtz (eds.), Proceedings of GAP.5, Bielefeld 2003. Mentis
    Although there is an ongoing controversy in philosophy of science about so called ceteris paribus laws that is, roughly, about laws with exceptionsóa fundamental question about those laws has been neglected (ß2). This is due to the fact that this question becomes apparent only if two different readings of ceteris paribus clauses in laws have been separated. The first reading of ceteris paribus clauses, which I will call the epistemic reading, (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Kai-Yuan Cheng (2008). How to Give a Semantic Analysis of Ceteris Paribus Laws. Cadernos de História E Filosofia da Ciência 18 (1).
    The phrase of ceteris paribus , i.e., other things being equal, is widely employed to state laws in non-basic sciences, such as economics, medicine, geography, biology, and psychology. However, what the phrase in question says is highly unclear, which results in severe philosophical problems calling into question the status of special sciences. The main purpose of this paper is to critically examine a lexicographic study of cp proposed by Michael Morreau , who tries to provide an adequate (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Travis Dumsday (2013). Laws of Nature Don't Have Ceteris Paribus Clauses, They Are Ceteris Paribus Clauses. Ratio 26 (2):134-147.
    Laws of nature are properly (if controversially) conceived as abstract entities playing a governing role in the physical universe. Dispositionalists typically hold that laws of nature are not real, or at least are not fundamental, and that regularities in the physical universe are grounded in the causal powers of objects. By contrast, I argue that dispositionalism implies nomic realism: since at least some dispositions have ceteris paribus clauses incorporating uninstantiated universals, and these ceteris paribus (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  29.  8
    Luke Fenton‐Glynn (2016). Ceteris Paribus Laws and Minutis Rectis Laws. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2):n/a-n/a.
    Special science generalizations admit of exceptions. Among the class of non-exceptionless special science generalizations, I distinguish minutis rectis generalizations from the more familiar category of ceteris paribus generalizations. I argue that the challenges involved in showing that mr generalizations can play the law role are underappreciated, and quite different from those involved in showing that cp generalizations can do so. I outline a strategy for meeting the challenges posed by mr generalizations.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Stephen R. Schiffer (1991). Ceteris Paribus Laws. Mind 100 (397):1-17.
  31.  32
    Bernhard Nickel (2014). The Role of Kinds in the Semantics of Ceteris Paribus Laws. Erkenntnis 79 (10):1729-1744.
    This paper investigates the interaction between semantic theories for cp-laws (roughly, laws that hold “all things equal”) and metaphysical theories of kinds in the special sciences. Its central conclusion is that cp-laws concerning kinds behave differently from cp-laws concerning non-kinds: “ravens are black” which concerns the kind corvus corax, behaves differently from from “albino ravens are white” which concerns the non-kind grouping of albino ravens. I argue that this difference is in the first instance logical: the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32.  33
    Tobias Henschen (2015). Ceteris Paribus Conditions and the Interventionist Account of Causality. Synthese 192 (10):3297-3311.
    The paper uses a de-relativized variant of Woodward’s definition of direct type-level causation to develop an account of causal ceteris paribus laws. It argues that the relation between X and Y needs to satisfy three conditions in order to qualify as one of direct type-level causation, that satisfaction of these conditions guarantees the applicability of claims of direct type-level causation, that the context of applicability motivates referring to these conditions as cp conditions, and that claims of direct (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Paul M. Pietroski (1993). Prima Facie Obligations, Ceteris Paribus Laws in Moral Theory. Ethics 103 (3):489-515.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   45 citations  
  34.  23
    Christopher H. Eliot (2011). Hempel's Provisos and Ceteris Paribus Clauses. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 42 (2):207-218.
    The problem of ceteris paribus clauses and Hempel’s problem of provisos are closely-related difficulties. Both challenge advocates of accounts of scientific theories involving laws understood as universal generalizations, and they have been treated as identical problems. Earman and Roberts argue that the problems are distinct. Towards arguing against them, I characterize the relationship between Hempel’s provisos and one way of expressing ceteris paribus clauses. I then describe the relationship between the problems attributed to the clauses, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  48
    Gustavo Marqués (2010). El Problema con las Cláusulas Ceteris Paribus en Economía. Principia 8 (2):159-192.
    In social sciences, particularly in economics, ceteris paribus clauses give rise to special methodological problems, which make difficult both to regard its generalizations as genuine laws and to test such laws empirically. Daniel Hausman claims that the problem with ceteris paribus clauses in economics is that their content is not fully specified. This paper aims to discuss and criticize Hausman’s reconstruction of an economic law and his ideas as to how they could be tested. (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  6
    Gerhard Schurz (2014). Ceteris Paribus and Ceteris Rectis Laws: Content and Causal Role. Erkenntnis 79 (S10):1801-1817.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  37. M. Lange (2002). Who's Afraid of Ceteris-Paribus Laws? Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Them'. Erkenntnis 57:131-147.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  38.  3
    J. van Brakel (1992). Ceteris Paribus Laws. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15 (3):584-585.
    Translate
      Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  39.  50
    Peter Mott (1992). Fodor and Ceteris Paribus Laws. Mind 101 (402):335-46.
  40. Ned Hall (2005). Causation and Ceteris Paribus Laws. The Harvard Review of Philosophy 13 (1):80-99.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. N. Cartwright (1995). Ceteris Paribus Laws and Socio-Economic Machines. The Monist 78 (3):276-294.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  59
    Alexander Reutlinger (2009). Markus Schrenk the Metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (1):229-233.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  43.  30
    Nancy Cartwright (2001). 14 Ceteris Paribus Laws and Socio-Economic Machines. In Uskali Mäki (ed.), The Economic World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics. Cambridge University Press 275.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  37
    Menno Rol (2012). On Ceteris Paribus Laws in Economics (and Elsewhere): Why Do Social Sciences Matter to Each Other? Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 5:27-53.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  73
    Ted A. Warfield (1993). Folk-Psychological Ceteris-Paribus Laws. Philosophical Studies 71 (1):99-112.
  46.  23
    Bengt Hansson (2013). There Are No Ceteris Paribus Laws Bengt Hansson. In Christer Svennerlind, Jan Almäng & Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (eds.), Johanssonian Investigations. Ontos Verlag 5--231.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  38
    Max Kistler (2007). Review of Markus Schrenk, The Metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus Laws. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (10).
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Robert Kowalenko (2009). How to Think About Idealisation and Ceteris Paribus-Laws. Synthese 167 (1):183-201.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Emma Tobin (2004). Ceteris Paribus Laws. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):498.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  54
    Alexander Rosenberg (1996). Laws, Damn Laws, and Ceteris Paribus Clauses. Southern Journal of Philosophy 34 (S1):183-204.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000