Abstract
Much of the literature on ceteris paribus laws is based on a misguided egalitarianism about the sciences. For example, it is commonly held that the special sciences are riddled with ceteris paribus laws; from this many commentators conclude that if the special sciences are not to be accorded a second class status, it must be ceteris paribus all the way down to fundamental physics. We argue that the (purported) laws of fundamental physics are not hedged by ceteris paribus clauses and provisos. Furthermore, we show that not only is there no persuasive analysis of the truth conditions for ceteris paribus laws, there is not even an acceptable account of how they are to be saved from triviality or how they are to be melded with standard scientific methodology. Our way out of this unsatisfactory situation to reject the widespread notion that the achievements and the scientific status of the special sciences must be understood in terms of ceteris paribus laws.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Anscombe, G. E. M.: 1971, Causality and Determinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beatty, J.: 1995, 'The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis', in J. Lennox et al. (eds.), Concepts, Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 45-81.
Carrier, M.: 1998, 'In Defense of Psychological Laws', International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12, 217-232.
Carroll, J.: 1994, Laws of Nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cartwright, N.: 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cartwright, N.: 1989, Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cartwright, N.: 1995, 'Ceteris Paribus Laws and Socio-Economic Machines', Monist 78, 276-297.
Cartwright, N.: 1997, 'Where Do the Laws of Nature Come From?' Dialectica 51, 65-78.
Earman, J. and Norton, J. D.: 1998, 'Exorcist XIV: The Wrath of Maxwell's Demon'," Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, in press.
Fodor, J. A.: 1991, 'You Can Fool Some of the People All the Time, Everything Else Being Equal; Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanations', Mind 100, 19-34.
Giere, R.: 1988, 'Laws, Theories, and Generalizations',"in A. Grünbaum and W. Salmon (eds.), The Limits of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 37-46.
Hausman, D. M.: 1992, The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hutchison, T. W.: 1938, The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, Macmillan, London. Reprinted 1965. New York: A. M. Kelly.
Hempel, C. G.: 1988, 'Provisos: A Problem Concerning the Inferential Function of Scientific Laws', in A. Grünbaum and W. Salmon (eds.), The Limits of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA., pp. 19-36.
Kincaid, H.: 1990, 'Defending Laws in the Social Sciences', Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 20, 56-83.
Kincaid, H.: 1996, Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences,.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lakatos, I.: 1970, 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91-195.
Lange, M.: 1993a, 'Natural Laws and the Problem of Provisos', Erkenntnis 38, 233-248.
Lange, M.: 1993b, 'Lawlikeness', Nous 27, 1-21.
Lange, M.: 1995, 'Are There Natural Laws Concerning Particular Biological Species?' Journal of Philosophy 92, 430-451.
Lewis, D.: 1973, Counterfactuals, Harvard Univesity Press, MA.
Musgrave, A.: 1980, 'Wittgensteinian Instrumentalism', Theoria 45(6), 65-105.
Mott, P.: 1992, 'Fodor and Ceteris Paribus Laws', Mind 101, 33-346.
Paige, J.: 1975, Agrarian Revolutions, Free Press, New York.
Persky, J.: 1990, 'Ceteris Paribus', Journal of Economic Perspectives 4, 187-193.
Pietroski, P. and Rey, G.: 1995, 'When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46, 81-110.
Rosenberg, A.: 1992, Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns? University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Salmon, W.: 1970, 'Statistical Explanation', reprinted in W. Salmon (ed.), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1971.
Schiffer, S.: 1991, 'Ceteris Paribus Laws', Mind 100, 1-17.
Sellars,W.: 1963, Science, Perception and Reality, Humanities Press, New York. Reprinted 1991, Ridgeview Press, Atasacadero, CA.
Silverberg, A.: 1996, 'Psychological Laws and Non-Monotonic Logic', Erkenntnis 44, 199-144.
Sklar, L.: 1993, Physics and Chance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, P.: 1998, Explaining Chaos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarenden Press, Oxford.
Van Fraassen, B. B.: 1989, Laws and Symmetries, Clarenden Press, Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Earman, J., Roberts, J. CETERIS PARIBUS, THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF PROVISOS. Synthese 118, 439–478 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005106917477
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005106917477