Abstract
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-laws 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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Adams, E. W.: 1975, The Logic of Conditionals, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Cartwright, N.: 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cartwright, N.: 1989, Nature's Capacities and their Measurement, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cartwright, N.: 2002, ‘In Favour of Laws That Are Not Ceteris Paribus After All’ this issue.
Dray, W.: 1957, Laws and Explanation in History, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Earman, J.: 1986, A Primer on Determinism, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Earman, J. and J. Roberts: 1999, ‘Ceteris Paribus, There Is No Problem of Provisos’ Synthese 118, 439–478.
Earman, J., J. Roberts and S. Smith: 2002, ‘Ceteris Paribus Lost’ this issue.
Eells, E.: 1991, Probabilistic Causality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fisher, R.: 1951, The Design of Experiments, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Fodor, J.: 1991, ‘You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time’ Mind 100, 19–34.
Gadenne. V.: 1984, Theorie und Erfahrung in der psychologischen Forschung, Mohr, Tübingen.
Hempel, C. G.: 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays, Free Press, New York.
Hempel, C. G.: 1988, ‘Provisos’ in A. Grünbaum and W. Salmon, (eds), The Limitations of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 19–36.
Horgan, T. and J. Tienson:1996, Connectionism and the Philosophy of Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Joseph, G.: 1980, ‘The Many Sciences and the One World’ Journal of Philosophy 77(12), 773–790.
Kincaid, H.: 1996, Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ reprinted in I. Lakatos: 1978, Philosophical Papers, Vol 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McCarthy, J.: 1986, ‘Application of Circumscription to Formalizing Common-Sense Knowledge’ Artificial Intelligence 13, 89–116.
Millikan, R. G.: 1984, Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mott, P.: 1992, ‘Fodor and Ceteris Paribus Laws’ Mind 101, 335–346.
Pietroski, P. and G. Rey:1995, ‘When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46, 81–110.
Rapaport, A.: 1986, General System Theory, Abacus Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schiffer, S.: 1991, ‘Ceteris Paribus Laws’ Mind 100, 1–17.
Schurz, G.: 1995, ‘Theories and their Applications – A Case of Nonmonotonic Reasoning’ in W. Herfel et al. (eds), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 69–293.
Schurz, G.: 1998, ‘Probabilistic Semantics for Delgrande's Conditional Logic and a Counterexample to his Default Logic’ Artificial Intelligence 102, 81–95.
Schurz, G.: 2001a, ‘Pietroski and Rey on Ceteris Paribus Laws’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52,: 359–370.
Schurz, G.: 2001b, ‘What Is ‘Normal’? An Evolution-Theoretic Foundation of Normic Laws and Their Relation to Statistical Normality’ Philosophy of Science 28, 476–97.
Scriven, M.: 1959, ‘Truisms as Grounds for Historical Explanations’ in P. Gardiner (ed.), Theories of History, The Free Press, New York.
Silverberg, A.: 1996, ‘Psychological Laws and Nonmonotonic Reasoning’ Erkenntnis 44, 199–224.
Spohn, W.: 2002, ‘Laws, Ceteris Paribus Conditions, and the Dynamics of Belief’ this issue.
Woodward, J.: 2002, ‘There Is No such Thing as a Ceteris Paribus Law’ this issue.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schurz, G. Ceteris Paribus Laws: Classification and Deconstruction. Erkenntnis 57, 351–372 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021582327947
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021582327947