Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 79, Supplement 10, pp 1729–1744 | Cite as

The Role of Kinds in the Semantics of Ceteris Paribus Laws

  • Bernhard NickelEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the interaction between semantic theories for cp-laws (roughly, laws that hold “all things equal”) and metaphysical theories of kinds in the special sciences. Its central conclusion is that cp-laws concerning kinds behave differently from cp-laws concerning non-kinds: “ravens are black” which concerns the kind corvus corax, behaves differently from from “albino ravens are white” which concerns the non-kind grouping of albino ravens. I argue that this difference is in the first instance logical: the two sorts of cp-laws give rise to different inferential patterns. I draw two further conclusions. The difference in logical behavior poses a severe problem for extant semantic theories of cp-laws, and: we cannot elucidate the distinction between kinds and non-kinds by suggesting that only kinds can appear in laws.

Keywords

Natural Kind Semantic Theory Majority Constraint Conditional Property Bare Plural 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Boyd, R. N. (1992). Constructivism, realism, and philosophical method. In J. Earman (Ed.), Inference, explanation, and other frustrations (pp. 131–198). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, R. N. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craver, C. F. (2009). Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodson, S. I. (1989). Predator-induced reaction norms. BioScience, 39(7), 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Earman, J., & Roberts, J. (1999). Ceteris paribus, there is no problem of provisos. Synthese, 118(3), 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earman, J., Roberts, J., & Smith, S. (2002). Ceteris paribus lost. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ereshefsky, M., & Matthen, M. (2005). Taxonomy, polymorphism, and history: An introduction to population structure theory. Philosophy of Science, 72(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fodor, J. A. (1991). You can fool some of the people all of the time, everything else being equal; hedged laws and psychological explanations. Mind, 100(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  12. Hausman, D. M. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hüttemann, A. (2014). Ceteris paribus laws in physics. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9637-6.
  14. Kornblith, H. (1993). Inductive inference and its natural ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lange, M. (1995). Are there natural laws concerning particular biological species? The Journal of Philosophy, 92(8), 430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lange, M. (2000). Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  18. Lange, M. (2002). Who’s afraid of Ceteris–Paribus laws? Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love them. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leslie, S.-J. (2007). Generics and the structure of the mind. In J. Hawthorne (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives 21, philosophy of mind (pp. 375–403). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. K. (1999). New work for a theory of universals. In Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 8–55). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  21. Liebesman, D. (2011). Simple generics. Noûs, 45(3), 409–442.Google Scholar
  22. Lowe, E. (2009). More kinds of being. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Machamer, P. K., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 57(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthen, M. (2009). Chickens, eggs, and speciation. Noûs, 43(1), 94–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mill, J. S. (1891/2002). A system of logic: Ratiocinative and inductive, Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific. Reprint of the 1891 edition.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, S. D. (1997). Pragmatic laws. Philosophy of Science, 64, S468–S479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell, S. D. (2000). Dimensions of scientific law. Philosophy of Science, 67(2), 242–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nickel, B. (2008). Generics and the ways of normality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(6), 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nickel, B. (2010). Generically free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(6), 479–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nickel, B. (in prep) Between logic and the world. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  31. Pemberton, J., & Cartwright, N. (2014). Ceteris paribus laws need machines to generate them. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9639-4.
  32. Pietroski, P. M., & Rey, G. (1995). When other things aren’t equal: Saving ceteris paribus laws from vacuity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46(1), 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quine, W. (1969). Natural kinds. In Ontological relativity and other essays (pp. 114–138). New York: Columbia UP.Google Scholar
  34. Reutlinger, A. (2014). Do statistical laws solve the ‘problem of provisos’? Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9640-y.
  35. Roberts, J. T. (2014). CP-law statements as vague, self-referential, self-locating, statistical, and perfectly in order. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9641-x.
  36. Schiffer, S. (1991). Ceteris paribus laws. Mind, 100(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schrenk, M. (2014). Better best systems and the issue of CP-laws. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9642-9.
  38. Schurz, G. (2001). What is ‘normal’? An evolution-theoretic foundation for normic laws and their relation to statistical normality. Philosophy of Science, 68(4), 476–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schurz, G. (2002). Ceteris paribus laws: Classification and deconstruction. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schurz, G. (2011). Evolution in Natur und Kultur: Eine Einfürung in the verallgemeinerte Evolutionstheorie. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schurz, G. (2014). Ceteris paribus and ceteris rectis laws: Content and causal role. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9643-8.
  42. Smith, G. A., & Pun, A. (2010). How does earth work? (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Spohn, W. (2002). Laws, ceteris paribus conditions, and the dynamics of belief. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stearns, S. C., & Hoekstra, R. F. (2000). Evolution: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  46. Strevens, M. (2012). Ceteris paribus hedges: Causal voodoo that works. Journal of Philosophy, 109(11), 652–675.Google Scholar
  47. Strevens, M. (2014). High-level exceptions explained. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9644-7.
  48. West, G. B., Brown, J. H., & Enquist, B. J. (1997a). A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276(5309), 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. West, G. B., Brown, J. H., & Enquist, B. J. (1997b). A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276, 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, R. A., Barker, M. J., & Brigandt, I. (2007). When traditional essentialism fails: Biological natural kinds. Philosophical Topics, 35(1–2), 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woodward, J. (2001). Law and explanation in biology: Invariance is the kind of stability that matters. Philosophy of Science, 68(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woodward, J. (2002). There is no such thing as a ceteris paribus law. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations