Ceteris-Paribus Qualifiers

Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Antecedent-strengthening, a trivially valid inference of classical logic of the form: P → Q ⊨ (P & R) → Q, has a counterpart in everyday reasoning that often fails. A plausible solution to the problem involves assuming an implicit ceteris paribus (CP) qualifier that can be explicated as an additional conjunct in the antecedent of the premise. The qualifier can be explicated as ‘everything else relevant remains unchanged’ or alternatively as ‘nothing interferes’. The qualifier appears most prominently in the context of the discussion of laws in the sciences, where these laws are often expressed with a CP qualifier. From an analysis of the qualifier’s role in the problem of antecedent-strengthening, we can learn more about CP qualifiers in general and in their application to the laws used in the sciences.

Keywords

Failure of antecedent-strengthening Ceteris Paribus qualifiers Ceteris Paribus laws Conditions Conditionals 

References

  1. Brennan, A. (2012). Necessary and sufficient conditions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition).Google Scholar
  2. Earman, J., & Roberts, J. (1999). Ceteris paribus, there is no problem of provisos”. Synthese, 118, 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geis, M. L. (1973). If and unless. In B. Kachru et al. (Eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renee Kahane. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Goldstein, L., Brennan, A., Deutsch, M., & Lau, J. Y. F. (2005). Logic: Key concepts in philosophy. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lycan, W. G. (2001). Real conditionals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Priest, G. (2001). An introduction to non-classical logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Reutlinger, A., Schurz, G., & Hüttemann, A. (2015). Ceteris paribus laws. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition).Google Scholar
  9. Salmon, W. (1989). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Sanford, D. H. (1989). If P, then Q: Conditionals and the foundations of reasoning. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Schurz, G. (2002). Ceteris paribus laws: Classification and deconstruction. Erkenntnis, 57, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wertheimer, R. (1968). Conditions. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wilson, I. (1979). Explanatory and inferential conditionals. Philosophical Studies, 35, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Woodward, J. (2002). There is no such thing as a ceteris paribus law. Erkenntnis, 57, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität ErfurtErfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations