Erkenntnis

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 303–328 | Cite as

There is No Such Thing as a Ceteris Paribus Law

  • James Woodward
Article

Abstract

In this paper I criticize the commonly accepted idea that the generalizations of the special sciences should be construed as ceteris paribus laws. This idea rests on mistaken assumptions about the role of laws in explanation and their relation to causal claims. Moreover, the major proposals in the literature for the analysis of ceteris paribus laws are, on their own terms, complete failures. I sketch a more adequate alternative account of the content of causal generalizations in the special sciences which I argue should replace the ceteris paribus conception.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Cartwright, N.: 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, T. and D. Campbell: 1979, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Houghton Miflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Earman, J. and J. Roberts: 1999, ‘Ceteris Paribus, There Is Problem of Provisos’ Synthese 118, 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Earman, J., J. Roberts, and S, Smith: This volume, ‘Ceteris Paribus Lost’ Erkenntnis 57, 281–301.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J.: 1991, ‘You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time, Everything Else Being Equal; Hedged Laws and Pscychological Explanation’ Mind 100, 19–34.Google Scholar
  6. Glymour, C.: This volume, ‘A Semantics and Methodology for Ceteris Paribus Hypotheses’ Erkenntnis 57, 395–405.Google Scholar
  7. Hausman, D.: 1992, The Inexact and Seperate Science of Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Mott, P.: 1992, ‘Fodor and Ceteris Ceteris ParibusMind 101, 3350-346.Google Scholar
  9. Pietroski, P. and G. Rey: 1995, ‘When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46, 81–110.Google Scholar
  10. Reddy, A., A. Janss, P. Philips, H. Weiss, and R. Packer: 2000, ‘Outcome for Children with Supratentorial Neuroectodermal Tumors Treated with Surgery, Radiation, and Chemotherapy’ Cancer 88(9), 2189–2193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schurz, G.: 2001, ‘Pietroski and Rey on Ceteris Paribus Laws’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Snow, J.: 1855, On the Mode of Communication of Cholera, John Churchill, London.Google Scholar
  13. Stafford, F.: 1985, ‘Income Maintenance Policy and Work Effort: Learning from Experiments and Labor Market Studies’ in J. Hausman and D. Wise (eds), Social Experimentation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. van Fraassen, B. C.: 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Woodward, J.: 1995, ‘Causality and Explanation in Econometrics’ in Daniel Little (ed.), On the Reliability of Economic Models: Essays in the Philosophy of Economics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 9–61.Google Scholar
  16. Woodward, J.: 2000, ‘Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2000, 197–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Woodward, J.: Forthcoming, Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Woodward
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, 101-40California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations