The Role of Kinds in the Semantics of Ceteris Paribus Laws

Nickel, Bernhard

doi:10.1007/s10670-014-9638-5

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, mechanisms and causal Bayes nets are proposed as a basis of cp laws (e.g., Cartwright 2002;Woodward 2002). Pemberton and Cartwright (2014) and Nickel (2014) employ certain types of mechanisms to determine the meaning of cp laws, whereas Schurz (2014) employs causal Bayes nets. Pemberton and Cartwright (2014) argue that one needs nomological machines to account for laws of nature, a type of causal mechanism (in a broad sense, as advocated by, for instance, Machamer et al 2000).…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pemberton and Cartwright (2014) argue that one needs nomological machines to account for laws of nature, a type of causal mechanism (in a broad sense, as advocated by, for instance, Machamer et al 2000). Nickel (2014) endorses an analysis of cp laws based on mechanisms that support generics. Schurz (2014) reconstructs ceteris paribus and ceteris rectis laws based on a causal graphs framework and contrasts both notions.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nickel (2014) and Reutlinger (2014) also investigate the metaphysics of cp laws, albeit independently of seminal accounts of lawhood. Nickel (2014) uses generics to explore the impact of cp laws on the issue of natural kinds. Nickel targets in particular the homeostatic property cluster account of kinds (Boyd 1999).…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, generics have a naturalistic epistemological edge, since generics seem to be cognitively more fundamental than representation formats that correspond to strict regularities, as evidence from child development suggests (e.g., Hollander et al 2002;Leslie 2008). Nickel (2014) and Unterhuber (2014) pursue such a generic-based approach. By employing generics, Nickel (2014) argues against the homeostatic property cluster view of natural kinds (e.g., Boyd 1999).…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Thinking about Non-Universal Laws

Reutlinger

Unterhuber

2014

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are ceteris paribus (cp) laws? Which disciplines appeal to cp laws and which semantics, metaphysical underpinning, and epistemological dimensions do cp law statements have? Firstly, we give a short overview of the recent discussion on cp laws, which addresses these questions. Secondly, we suggest that given the rich and diverse literature on cp laws a broad conception of cp laws should be endorsed which takes into account the different ways in which laws can be nonuniversal (by being ''non-strict'', ''inexact'', ''exception-ridden'', ''idealized'' and so forth). Finally, we provide an overview of the special issue on that basis and describe the individual contributions to the special issue according to the issues they address: (a) the range of applications of cp laws as well as the (b) semantics, (c) metaphysics, and (d) epistemology pertaining to cp law statements.Both authors-Alexander Reutlinger and Matthias Unterhuber have contributed equally to this paper.

show abstract

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Thinking about Non-Universal Laws

Reutlinger

Unterhuber

2014

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reutlinger et al (, section 9) provide a survey to the usage of ceteris paribus conditions in areas of philosophy other than philosophy of science (e.g., ethics, formal semantics, formal epistemology, and philosophy of language). Nickel (forthcoming) discusses the relation between cp‐conditions and generic conditionals in philosophy of language. Our present discussion is restricted to ceteris paribus clauses as applied to law statements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Better Best Systems - Too Good To Be True

Backmann

Reutlinger

2014

Dialectica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Craig Callender, Jonathan Cohen and Markus Schrenk have recently argued for an amended version of the best system account of laws -the better best system account (BBSA). This account of lawhood is supposed to account for laws in the special sciences, among other desiderata. Unlike David Lewis's original best system account of laws, the BBSA does not rely on a privileged class of natural predicates, in terms of which the best system is formulated. According to the BBSA, a contingently true generalization is a law of a special science S iff the generalization is an axiom (or a theorem) of the best system relative to the set of predicates used by special science S. We argue that the BBSA is, at best, an incomplete theory of special science laws, as it does not account for typical features of special science laws, such as attached ceteris paribus conditions and the idealized character of law statements in these disciplines.1 This paper is fully co-authored.

show abstract

Ceteris Paribus and Ceteris Rectis Laws: Content and Causal Role

Schurz

2014

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Role of Kinds in the Semantics of Ceteris Paribus Laws

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

Thinking about Non-Universal Laws

Thinking about Non-Universal Laws

Better Best Systems - Too Good To Be True

Ceteris Paribus and Ceteris Rectis Laws: Content and Causal Role

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About