Ceteris Paribus Laws Need Machines to Generate Them
- 339 Downloads
Most of the regularities that get represented as ‘laws’ in our sciences arise from, and are to be found regularly associated with, the successful operation of a nomological machine. Reference to the nomological machine must be included in the cp-clause of a cp-law if the entire cp-claim is to be true. We agree, for example, ‘ceteris paribus aspirins cure headaches’, but insist that they can only do so when swallowed by someone with the right physiological makeup and a headache. Besides providing a necessary condition on the truth of the cp-law claim, recognising the nomological machine has great practical importance. Referring to the nomological machine makes explicit where the regularities are to be found, which is of central importance to the use of cp-laws for prediction and manipulation. Equally important, bringing the nomological machine to the fore brings into focus the make-up of the machine—its parts, their powers and their arrangements—and its context case-by-case.
KeywordsChange Process Causal Claim Child Malnutrition Machine Structure Machine Arrangement
- Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Cartwright, N., & Pemberton, J. M. (2012). Aristotelian powers: Without them, what would modern science do? In J. Greco & R. Groff (Eds.), Powers and capacities in philosophy: The new Aristotelianism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Earman, J., Roberts, J., & Smith, S. (2002). Ceteris paribus lost. In J. Earman et al. (Eds.), Ceteris paribus laws. Erkenntnis, 52 (special issue) (pp. 281–301).Google Scholar
- Hüttemann, A. (2014). Ceteris paribus laws in physics. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9637-6.
- Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
- Nickel, B. (this volume). The role of kinds in the semantics of ceteris paribus laws. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
- Pemberton, J. M. (2011). Integrating mechanist and nomological machine ontologies to make sense of what-how-that evidence. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/pemberto.
- Schurz, G. (2014). Ceteris paribus and ceteris rectis laws: Content and causal role. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9643-8.
- Woodward, J. (2002). There is no such thing as a ceteris paribus law. In J. Earman et al. (Eds.), Ceteris paribus laws. Erkenntnis, 52 (Special issue) (pp. 303–328).Google Scholar