|
A Defense of Ceteris Paribus Laws| old_uid | 5585 |
|---|
| title | A Defense of Ceteris Paribus Laws |
|---|
| start_date | 2008/11/13 |
|---|
| schedule | 11h-13h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| summary | J. Earman, J. Roberts and S. Smith (thereafter ERS)'s main arguments against Ceteris Paribus (thereafter CP) laws can be summarized as following: (1) CP clauses can be easily eliminated if we properly use the scientific language; (2) The CP laws can not be tested, if we can not substitute testable auxiliaries for the CP clauses; (3) So called "CP laws" are just differential equations of evolution type, but laws are strict.
I argue that CP clauses could be ineliminable even with scientific terminology, if we consider all kinds of interferences. Secondly, it is also possible to test the contraposition of a CP law, therefore the law itself. Thirdly, ERS' account of differential equations may violate Earman's Mill-Ramsey-Lewis view of laws of nature. I also suggest it seems there is still a kind of residual Platonic idealism in the modern sciences, perhaps because of the mathematical tradition. Again, the Platonic view of laws of nature may be inconsistent with Earman's supervenience thesis (or Humean empiricism). If we give up the remnant of Platonic idealism, the concept of CP laws would not be so difficult to accept. |
|---|
| responsibles | Barberousse, Tessier Cardon |
|---|
| |
|