Ceteris Paribus Laws

Laws of nature take center stage in philosophy of science. Laws are usually believed to stand in a tight conceptual relation to many important key concepts such as causation, explanation, confirmation, determinism, counterfactuals etc. Traditionally, philosophers of science have focused on physical laws, which were taken to be at least true, universal statements that support counterfactual claims. But, although this claim about laws might be true with respect to physics, laws in the special sciences (such as biology, psychology, economics etc.) appear to have—maybe not surprisingly—different features than the laws of physics. Special science laws—for instance, the economic law “Under the condition of perfect competition, an increase of demand of a commodity leads to an increase of price, given that the quantity of the supplied commodity remains constant” and, in biology, Mendel's Laws—are usually taken to “have exceptions”, to be “non-universal” or “to be ceteris paribus laws”. How and whether the laws of physics and the laws of the special sciences differ is one of the crucial questions motivating the debate on ceteris paribus laws. Another major, controversial question concerns the determination of the precise meaning of “ceteris paribus”. Philosophers have attempted to explicate the meaning of ceteris paribus clauses in different ways. The question of meaning is connected to the problem of empirical content, i.e., the question whether ceteris paribus laws have non-trivial and empirically testable content. Since many philosophers have argued that ceteris paribus laws lack empirically testable content, this problem constitutes a major challenge to a theory of ceteris paribus laws

Counteridenticals

A counteridentical is a counterfactual with an identity statement in the antecedent. While counteridenticals generally seem non-trivial, most semantic theories for counterfactuals, when combined with the necessity of identity and distinctness, attribute vacuous truth conditions to such counterfactuals. In light of this, one could try to save the orthodox theories either by appealing to pragmatics or by denying that the antecedents of alleged counteridenticals really contain identity claims. Or one could reject the orthodox theory of counterfactuals in favor of a hyperintensional semantics that accommodates non-trivial counterpossibles. In this paper, I argue that none of these approaches can account for all the peculiar features of counteridenticals. Instead, I propose a modified version of Lewis’s counterpart theory, which rejects the necessity of identity, and show that it can explain all the peculiar features of counteridenticals in a satisfactory way. I conclude by defending the plausibility of contingent identity from objections

Why was Alchourrón afraid of snakes?

In the last papers published by Alchourrón, he attacked non-monotonic logics, which he considered philosophically unsound for the representation of defeasible reasoning. Instead of a non-monotonic consequence relation, he proposed a formal representation of defeasibility based on an AGM-like revision of implicit assumptions connected to the premises. Given that this is a procedure to generate non-monotonic logics, it is not clear, from a mathematical standpoint, why he was so suspicious of such logics. In the present paper we try to answer this question based on Alchourrón' s convictions about epistemology, particularly the epistemology of law. We also propose another revision operator on theories called refinement, which provides a faithful representation of the sort of epistemic change considered by Alchourrón as intrinsic to defeasibility.En sus últimos escritos publicados, Alchourrón desarrolló un ataque contra las lógicas no-monotónicas, que consideraba filosóficamente inadecuadas a la representación del razonamiento derrotable. En vez de una relación de consecuencia no-monotónica, él propuso una representación formal de la derrotabilidad basada en un modelo de revisión (tipo-AGM) de las asunciones implícitas ligadas a las premisas. Dado que éste es un procedimiento para generar lógicas no-monotónicas, no está claro -en el nivel matemático- por qué él era tan desconfiado de tales lógicas. En el presente texto intentamos contestar a esta pregunta basados en las convicciones de Alchourrón sobre epistemología, particularmente la epistemología jurídica. También proponemos otro operador de revisión aplicado a las teorías, llamado refinamiento, que proporciona una representación fiel de la especie de cambio epistémico considerado por Alchourrón como intrínseco a la derrotabilidad

Conditionals all the way down

It is usually accepted that unconditional statements are clearer and less problematic than conditional ones. This article goes against this popular belief by advancing the contrarian hypothesis that all unconditional statements can be reduced to conditional ones due to the way our assumptions support our assertions. In fact, considering the coherentist process by which most of our different beliefs mutually support themselves, the only genuine example of unconditional statements are cases of self-justified beliefs, but these examples are controversial and few and far between. The distinction between unconditional and conditional statements is similar to the distinction between assumptions and premises in that is a largely conventional idealisation that results from our attempts to limit epistemic complexity

Adaptive logic characterizations of input/output logic

We translate unconstrained and constrained input/output logics as introduced by Makinson and van der Torre to modal logics, using adaptive logics for the constrained case. The resulting reformulation has some additional benefits. First, we obtain a proof-theoretic (dynamic) characterization of input/output logics. Second, we demonstrate that our framework naturally gives rise to useful variants and allows to express important notions that go beyond the expressive means of input/output logics, such as violations and sanctions

Against Defaultism and Towards Localism in the Contingency/Inevitability Conversation: Or, Why We Should Shut up About Putting-Up

Philosophers and historians of science have for some time now debated whether the results of current science are ‘contingent’ or ‘inevitable’. Scholars have noted that inevitabilism often enjoys the status of a presumptive default position. Consequently, contingentists are, from the outset, lumbered with the burden of proof. This is evident in the case of the inevitabilist demand that the contingentist “put up or shut up” (PUSU). This paper adds to the existing case which says that inevitabilism’s default-status is unjustified. However, whilst some have suggested that contingentism should replace inevitabilism as the default position, I argue that the contingency/inevitability (C/I) conversation should proceed sans default. This move is motivated largely by my claim that the C/I issue is best conceived as a ‘local’, rather than a global or universal one. The main problem with taking inevitabilism or contingentism as the default is the globalist nature of such a tack. Whilst localism is arguably an emergent reality of the growing C/I literature, its implications have not been fully realised. I suggest that fully and explicitly embracing localism, including the closely related move of doing away with defaults, represents the most promising way forward for the C/I conversation. In addition, I will show how these moves entail that we stop worrying about the inevitabilist PUSU demand, or more bluntly, that we shut up about putting-up