1 Erratum to: Philos Stud (2013) 165:401–419 DOI 10.1007/s11098-012-9957-9

Throughout the paper, all occurrences of ‘not-(I 1 and … and I k (x) and … and I n )’, ‘not-(I 1 and … and I (j–1) and I (j+1) and … and I n )’, ‘not-(I 1 and … and I n )’, and ‘not- (K(x) and I 1 and … and I n )’ should be replaced by, respectively, ‘not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n )’, ‘not-(I 1 or … or I (j–1) or I (j+1) or … or I n )’, ‘not-(I 1 or … or I n )’, and ‘not-(K(x) or I 1 or … or I n )’.

In particular, the definitions of (DI) and (CI) on pp. 407–408 should read, respectively:

  1. (DI):

    x (destructively) interferes with o’s being intrinsically disposed to M when S iff:

    1. (1)

      I 1 and … and I k (x) and … and I n (where ‘x’ occurs free at least once in ‘I 1 and … and I k (x) and … and I n ’),

    2. (2)

      it is nomically possible that not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n ),

    3. (3)

      it is not the case that, if it were the case that S, then o would M,

    4. (4)

      for each I j (1 ≤ j ≤ n), even if it were the case that not-(I 1 or … or I (j–1) or I (j+1) or … or I n ), it would still not be the case that, if it were the case that S, then o would M,

    5. (5)

      if it were the case that not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n ), then:

      1. (5.1)

        it would be the case that, if it were the case that S, then o would M, and

      2. (5.2)

        it would not be the case that, if it were the case that not-S, then o would M,

    6. (6)

      it is not the case that, if it were the case that not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n ), then some (proper or improper) part of o, o*, would acquire some (sparse, natural) intrinsic property,

  2. (CI)

    x (constructively) interferes with o’s not being intrinsically disposed to M when S iff:

    1. (1)

      I 1 and … and I k (x) and … and I n ,

    2. (2)

      it is nomically possible that not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n ),

    3. (3)

      if it were the case that S, o would M,

    4. (4)

      for each I j (1 ≤ j ≤ n), even if it were the case that not-(I 1 or … or I (j–1) or I (j+1) or … or I n ), it would still be the case that, if it were the case that S, then o would M,

    5. (5)

      if it were the case that not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n ), then it would not be the case that, if it were the case that S, then o would M, and

    6. (6)

      it is not the case that, if it were the case that not-(I 1 or … or I k (x) or … or I n ), then some (proper or improper) part of o, o*, would lose some intrinsic property,

The numbered lists on p. 411 and p. 412 should read, respectively:

  1. i.

    o is intrinsically disposed to M when S.

  2. ii.

    not-J,

  3. iii.

    if it were that not-(I 1 or … or I n ), it would be that J.

  4. iv.

    if it were that (J and not-(I 1 or … or I n )), it would not be the case that, if it were that S, o would M.

and:

  1. v.

    There is no x such that:

    1. v.a.

      K(x),

    2. v.b.

      it is nomically possible that not-K(x),

    3. v.c.

      if it were that not-(K(x) or I 1 or … or I n ), it would not be the case that J.

Finally, the first sentence of the last paragraph on p. 412 should read:

‘As far as I can see, there are no clear counterexamples to intIFCA that satisfy conditions (i)–(v), for the only cases in which (i)–(v) would be obviously jointly satisfied are cases in which it is not (logically, metaphysically, or nomically) possible that not-(I 1 or I 2 or … or I n or J), so that, if it were the case that not-(I 1 or I 2 or … or I n ), it would have to be the case that J.’

I would like to thank Michael Kremer for bringing this issue with the published version of the paper to my attention.