, Volume 79, Supplement 10, pp 1759–1773 | Cite as

Do Statistical Laws Solve the ‘Problem of Provisos’?

  • Alexander ReutlingerEmail author
Original Article


In their influential paper “Ceteris Paribus, There is No Problem of Provisos”, Earman and Roberts (Synthese 118:439–478, 1999) propose to interpret the non-strict generalizations of the special sciences as statistical generalizations about correlations. I call this view the “statistical account”. Earman and Roberts claim that statistical generalizations are not qualified by “non-lazy” ceteris paribus conditions. The statistical account is an attractive view, since it looks exactly like what everybody wants: it is a simple and intelligible theory of special science laws without the need for mysterious ceteris paribus conditions. I present two challenges to the statistical account. According to the first challenge, the statistical account does not get rid of so-called “non-lazy” ceteris paribus conditions. This result undermines one of the alleged and central advantages of the statistical account. The second challenge is that the statistical account, qua general theory of special science laws, is weakened by the fact that idealized law statements resist a purely statistical interpretation.


Statistical Generalization Special Science Objective Probability Statistical Account Actual Correlation 
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.



I am grateful to Laura Franklin-Hall, Andreas Hüttemann, Marc Lange, Barry Loewer, Edouard Machery, John T. Roberts, Michael Strevens, and Jonathan Schaffer for extremely helpful conversations about the draft of this paper. Thanks to Maria Kronfeldner for, among other fruitful criticisms, drawing my attention to several non-trivial hidden premises in the debate on cp-laws, of which I was unaware at the time. Thanks for the indispensable intellectual and moral support of the Bürogemeinschaft in Cologne: Siegfried Jaag and Markus Schrenk. I am also indebted to audiences in Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Pittsburgh, and to two anonymous referees. Especially, I would like to thank Matthias Unterhuber for his dedication and his professional attitude in the process of editing this special issue. Last but certainly not least, thanks to Hannes Leitgeb for supporting Matthias’ and my editorial work.


  1. Albert, D. (2000). Time and chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Backmann, M., & Reutlinger, A. (2014) Better best systems: Too good to be true. manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  3. Batterman, R. (2002). The devil in the details. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2001). Lossy laws. Noûs, 35, 260–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callender, C., & Cohen, J. (2010). Special sciences, conspiracy and the better best system account of lawhood. Erkenntnis, 73, 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J., & Callender, C. (2009). A better best system acccount of lawhood. Philosophical Studies, 145, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earman, J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earman, J., & Roberts, J. (1999). Ceteris Paribus, there is no problem of provisos. Synthese, 118, 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earman, J., Roberts, J., & Smith, S. (2002). Ceteris paribus lost. Erkenntnis, 52, 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayek, A. (2009). Fifteen argument against hypothetical frequentism. Erkenntnis, 70, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hempel, C. (1988). Provisoes: A problem concerning the inferential function of scientific theories. Erkenntnis, 28, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hüttemann, A. (2014). Ceteris Paribus laws in physics. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9637-6.
  14. Hüttemann, A., & Reutlinger, A. (2013). Against the statistical account of special science laws. In Vassilios Karakostas & Dennis Dieks (Eds.), EPSA11: Perspectives and foundational problems (pp. 181–192). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Lange, M. (1993). Natural laws and the problem of provisos. Erkenntnis, 38, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lange, M. (2002). Who’s afraid of Ceteris Paribus laws? or: How i learned to stop worrying and love them. Erkenntnis, 52, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. In Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 224-247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Loewer, B. (2008). Why there is anything except physics. In J. Hohwy, & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced. New essays on reduction, explanation, and causation (pp. 149–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Reutlinger, A. (2011). A theory of non-universal laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reutlinger, A. (2013). A theory of causation in the biological and social sciences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reutlinger, A., Hüttemann, A., Schurz, G. (2011) Ceteris Paribus laws. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  22. Roberts, J. T. (2004). There are no laws in the social sciences. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science (pp. 168–185). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Roberts, J. T. (2014). CP-law statements as vague, self-referential, self-locating, statistical, and perfectly in order. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9641-x.
  24. Roberts, J. T. (manuscript) Nomic frequentism.
  25. Schrenk, M. (2007). The metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus laws. Frankfurt: Ontos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schrenk, M. (2014). Better best systems and the issue of CP-laws. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9642-9.
  27. Strevens, M. (2003). Bigger than chaos: Understanding complexity through probability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Strevens, M. (2012). Ceteris Paribus hedges: Causal voodoo that works. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 652–675.Google Scholar
  30. Strevens, M. (2014). High-level exceptions explained. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9644-7.
  31. Unterhuber, M. (2014). Do Ceteris Paribus laws exist? A regularity-based best system analysis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6.
  32. Van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104, 639–659.Google Scholar
  34. Weslake, B. (forthcoming). Statistical mechanical imperialism. In A. Wilson (Ed.), Asymmetries of chance and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Woodward, J. (2010). Causation in biology. Stability, specificity, and the choice of levels of explanation. Biology and Philosophy, 25, 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodward, J. (forthcoming). Simplicity in the best systems account of laws of nature. British Journal for Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophyLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations