Abstract
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 capacities. Through an examination of theprimary example that motivated these views, I show that given aproper understanding of the situation, neither view is optimalbecause the law is not even apparently violated. Along the way, Iam able to diagnose what has led to the mistaken belief: I showthat it originates from an element of the standard empiricistconception of laws. I then evaluate the suggestions of how tointerpret violated laws with respect to other examples and findthem wanting there too.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Antman, S.: 1995, Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity, Springer-Verlag, New York.
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.: 1999, The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Earman, J. and J. Roberts: 1999, ‘Ceteris Paribus, There is no Problem of Provisos', Synthese 118, 439–478.
Eringen, A. C.: 1967, Mechanics of Continua, John Wiley, New York.
Fodor, J.: 1991, ‘You Can Fool Some of the People all of the Time, Everything Else Being Equal', Mind 100, 20–34.
Giere, R.: 1988, ‘Laws, Theories, and Generalizations', in Grünbaum and Salmon (eds), pp. 37–46.
Giere, R.: 1999, Science Without Laws, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Grünbaum, A. and W. Salmon (eds): 1988, The Limitations of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hempel, C.: 1988, ‘Provisos: A Problem Concerning the Inferential Function of Scientific Theories', in Grünbaum and Salmon (eds), pp. 19–36.
Hüttemann, A.: 1998, “Laws and Dispositions', Philosophy of Science 65, 121–135.
Joseph, G.: 1980, ‘The Many Sciences and the One World', Journal of Philosophy 77, 773–791.
Lange, M.: 1993, ‘Natural Laws and the Problem of Provisos', Erkenntnis 38, 233–248.
Lipton, P.: 1999, ‘All Else Being Equal', Philosophy 74, 155–168.
Malvern, L.: 1969, Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Media, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pietroski, P. and G. Rey: 1995, ‘When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity', British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 46, 81–110.
Roseveare, N. T.: 1982, Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Smith, S.: 2000, ‘Resolving Russell's Anti-Realism about Causation: The Connection between Functional Dependencies and Causation', The Monist 83, 274–295.
Truesdell, C.: 1991, A First Course in Rational Continuum Mechanics, Academic Press, Boston.
Wilson, M.: 1990, ‘Law Along the Frontier: Differential Equations and their Boundary Conditions', PSA 2, 565–575.
Wilson, M.: 1998, ‘Mechanics, Classical', Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Zemanian, A. H.: 1987, Distribution Theory and Transform Analysis, Dover, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, S. Violated Laws, Ceteris Paribus Clauses, and Capacities. Synthese 130, 235–264 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014422011637
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014422011637