Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 79, Supplement 10, pp 1787–1799 | Cite as

Better Best Systems and the Issue of CP-Laws

  • Markus SchrenkEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This paper combines two ideas: (1) That the Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA) can cope with laws that have exceptions (cf. Braddon-Mitchell in Noûs 35(2):260–277, 2001; Schrenk in The metaphysics of ceteris paribus laws. Ontos, Frankfurt, 2007). (2) That a BSA can be executed not only on the mosaic of perfectly natural properties but also on any set of special science properties (cf., inter alia, Schrenk 2007, Selected papers contributed to the sections of GAP.6, 6th international congress of the society for analytical philosophy. Mentis, Paderborn/Münster, 2008; Cohen and Callender in Philos Stud 145:1–34, 2009, Erkenntnis 73:427–447, 2010). Bringing together (1) and (2) results in an analysis of special science ceteris paribus laws.

Keywords

Natural Property Good System Deductive System Special Science Schroedinger Equation 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to the audiences at the GAP8 conference, Konstanz (2012), at Matthias Frisch’s Laws of Nature workshop in Munich (2012), and at the Pittsburgh Lunchtime Seminar (2013). I am especially grateful to Marius Backmann, Jenann Ismael, Siegfried Jaag, Andreas Hüttemann, Alexander Reutlinger, Charlotte Matheson, Thomas Müller, Stephen Mumford, Jesse Mulder, Emma Tobin, Matthew Tugby, Matthias Unterhuber and Brad Weslake for many valuable discussions and/or advice and comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I wish to thank Bastian Walter who helped me with editorial issues regarding the manuscript. The paper was finalized within the context of the Causation and Explanation Research Group funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

References

  1. Albert, D. (2000). Time and chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, D. (unpublished manuscript). Physics and chance.Google Scholar
  3. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2001). Lossy laws. Noûs, 35(2), 260–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J., & Callender, C. (2009). A better best system account of lawhood. Philosophical Studies, 145, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J., & Callender, C. (2010). Special sciences, conspiracy and the better best system account of lawhood. Erkenntnis, 73, 427–447 (Note that Callender is the first author of their second paper. For coherence I keep the 2009 order of names).Google Scholar
  6. Earman, J. (1978). The universality of laws. Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frisch, M. (forthcoming) Why physics can’t explain everything. To appear in: Asymmetries of chance and time. In: A. Wilson (Eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Halpin, J. F. (2003). Scientific law: A perspectival account. Erkenntnis, 58, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hüttemann, A. (this volume). Ceteris paribus laws in physics. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
  10. Kowalenko, R. (2011). The epistemology of hedged laws. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lange, M. (1993). Natural laws and the problem of provisos. Erkenntnis, 38, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. See (Lewis 1986, 32–66).Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. (1983a). New work for a theory of universals. See (Lewis 1999, 8–55).Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. (1983b). Extrinsic properties. See (Lewis 1999, 111–115).Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical papers II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. See (Lewis 1999, 224–247).Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis, D., & Langton, R. (1998). Defining ‘intrinsic’. See (Lewis 1999, 116–132).Google Scholar
  20. Loewer, B. (1996). Humean supervenience. Philosophical Topics, 24(1), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loewer, B. (2007). Laws and natural properties. Philosophical Topics, 35(1&2), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pemberton, J., & Cartwright, N. (this volume). Ceteris paribus laws need machines to generate them. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  23. Pietroski, P., & Rey, G. (1995). When other things aren’t equal: Saving ceteris paribus laws from vacuity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reutlinger, A. (this volume). Do statistical laws solve the ‘Problem of Provisos’?. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  25. Reutlinger, A., & Backmann, M. (under review).Google Scholar
  26. Reutlinger, A., Schurz, G., & Hüttemann, A. (2011). Ceteris paribus laws. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. In: E. N. Zalta (Eds.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/ceteris-paribus/.
  27. Roberts, J. (1998). ‘Laws of Nature’ as an indexical term: A reinterpretation of Lewis’s best-system analysis. Philosophy of Science, 66(Supplement), 502–511.Google Scholar
  28. Roberts, J. (this volume). CP-law statements as vague, self-referential, self-locating, statistical, and perfectly in order. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  29. Schrenk, M. (2007). The metaphysics of ceteris paribus laws. Frankfurt: Ontos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schrenk, M. (2008). A theory for special sciences laws. In H. Bohse, K. Dreimann, & S. Walter (Eds.), Selected papers contributed to the sections of GAP.6, 6th international congress of the society for analytical philosophy. Paderborn/Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  31. Schrenk, M. (2009). Can physics be complete if there is no fundamental level? in dialectica 63(2), 205–208.Google Scholar
  32. Schrenk, M. Manuscript. Properties for and of the Better Best System.Google Scholar
  33. Schurz, G. (this volume). Ceteris paribus and ceteris rectis laws: Content and causal role. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  34. Strevens, M. (this volume). High-level exceptions explained. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, B. (1993). On natural properties in metaphysics. Mind, 102, 81–100 (Reprinted in The Philosopher’s Annual, XVI, 185–204, 1993).Google Scholar
  36. Unterhuber, M. (this volume). Do ceteris paribus laws exist? A regularity-based best system analysis. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  37. Weslake, B. (forthcoming). Statistical mechanical imperialism. To appear in: Asymmetries of Chance and Time. In: A. Wilson (Eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations