Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis
Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Ro...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Unterhuber, Matthias [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Erkenntnis - Springer Netherlands, 1930, 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:79 ; year:2014 ; number:Suppl 10 ; day:08 ; month:11 ; pages:1833-1847 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC207272127X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC207272127X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503053331.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC207272127X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 5,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a PHILOS |q DE-12 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a LING |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Unterhuber, Matthias |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Logical Constant | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Indicative Conditional | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Trivialization Problem | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Natural Language Generic | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bare Plural | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Erkenntnis |d Springer Netherlands, 1930 |g 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 |w (DE-627)129476242 |w (DE-600)203461-X |w (DE-576)01485578X |x 0165-0106 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:79 |g year:2014 |g number:Suppl 10 |g day:08 |g month:11 |g pages:1833-1847 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a FID-LING | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_72 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_130 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4028 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4193 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 79 |j 2014 |e Suppl 10 |b 08 |c 11 |h 1833-1847 | ||
| author_variant |
m u mu |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:01650106:2014----::oeeiprbsasxsaeuaiyaeb |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 doi (DE-627)OLC207272127X (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid Unterhuber, Matthias verfasserin aut Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural Enthalten in Erkenntnis Springer Netherlands, 1930 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 (DE-627)129476242 (DE-600)203461-X (DE-576)01485578X 0165-0106 nnns volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4193 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 79 2014 Suppl 10 08 11 1833-1847 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 doi (DE-627)OLC207272127X (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid Unterhuber, Matthias verfasserin aut Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural Enthalten in Erkenntnis Springer Netherlands, 1930 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 (DE-627)129476242 (DE-600)203461-X (DE-576)01485578X 0165-0106 nnns volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4193 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 79 2014 Suppl 10 08 11 1833-1847 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 doi (DE-627)OLC207272127X (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid Unterhuber, Matthias verfasserin aut Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural Enthalten in Erkenntnis Springer Netherlands, 1930 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 (DE-627)129476242 (DE-600)203461-X (DE-576)01485578X 0165-0106 nnns volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4193 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 79 2014 Suppl 10 08 11 1833-1847 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 doi (DE-627)OLC207272127X (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid Unterhuber, Matthias verfasserin aut Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural Enthalten in Erkenntnis Springer Netherlands, 1930 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 (DE-627)129476242 (DE-600)203461-X (DE-576)01485578X 0165-0106 nnns volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4193 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 79 2014 Suppl 10 08 11 1833-1847 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 doi (DE-627)OLC207272127X (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid Unterhuber, Matthias verfasserin aut Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural Enthalten in Erkenntnis Springer Netherlands, 1930 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 (DE-627)129476242 (DE-600)203461-X (DE-576)01485578X 0165-0106 nnns volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4193 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 79 2014 Suppl 10 08 11 1833-1847 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Erkenntnis 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Erkenntnis 79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847 volume:79 year:2014 number:Suppl 10 day:08 month:11 pages:1833-1847 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Erkenntnis |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Unterhuber, Matthias @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-11-08T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
129476242 |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
OLC207272127X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC207272127X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503053331.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC207272127X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Unterhuber, Matthias</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Logical Constant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Indicative Conditional</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trivialization Problem</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Natural Language Generic</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bare Plural</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Erkenntnis</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1930</subfield><subfield code="g">79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129476242</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)203461-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)01485578X</subfield><subfield code="x">0165-0106</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:79</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:Suppl 10</subfield><subfield code="g">day:08</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1833-1847</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_130</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4028</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4193</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">79</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">Suppl 10</subfield><subfield code="b">08</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">1833-1847</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Unterhuber, Matthias |
| spellingShingle |
Unterhuber, Matthias ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS fid LING misc Logical Constant misc Indicative Conditional misc Trivialization Problem misc Natural Language Generic misc Bare Plural Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis |
| authorStr |
Unterhuber, Matthias |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129476242 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0165-0106 |
| topic_title |
100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis Logical Constant Indicative Conditional Trivialization Problem Natural Language Generic Bare Plural |
| topic |
ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS fid LING misc Logical Constant misc Indicative Conditional misc Trivialization Problem misc Natural Language Generic misc Bare Plural |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS fid LING misc Logical Constant misc Indicative Conditional misc Trivialization Problem misc Natural Language Generic misc Bare Plural |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 ssgn 5,1 fid PHILOS fid LING misc Logical Constant misc Indicative Conditional misc Trivialization Problem misc Natural Language Generic misc Bare Plural |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Erkenntnis |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
129476242 |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Erkenntnis |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129476242 (DE-600)203461-X (DE-576)01485578X |
| title |
Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC207272127X (DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p |
| title_full |
Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis |
| author_sort |
Unterhuber, Matthias |
| journal |
Erkenntnis |
| journalStr |
Erkenntnis |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1833 |
| author_browse |
Unterhuber, Matthias |
| container_volume |
79 |
| class |
100 VZ 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid LING DE-30 fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Unterhuber, Matthias |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 |
| dewey-full |
100 |
| title_sort |
do ceteris paribus laws exist? a regularity-based best system analysis |
| title_auth |
Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis |
| abstract |
Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4193 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
Suppl 10 |
| title_short |
Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
129476242 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:57:42.727Z |
| _version_ |
1803574064159129600 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC207272127X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503053331.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC207272127X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10670-014-9645-6-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Unterhuber, Matthias</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Do Ceteris Paribus Laws Exist? A Regularity-Based Best System Analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract This paper argues that ceteris paribus (cp) laws exist based on a Lewisian best system analysis of lawhood (BSA). Furthermore, it shows that a BSA faces a second trivialization problem besides the one identified by Lewis. The first point concerns an argument against cp laws by Earman and Roberts. The second point aims to help making some assumptions of the BSA explicit. To address the second trivialization problem, a restriction in terms of natural logical constants is proposed that allows one to describe regularities, as specified by basic generics (e.g. ‘birds can fly’) and universals (e.g. ‘all birds can fly’). It is argued that cp laws rather than strict laws might be a part of the the best system of such a regularity-based BSA, since sets of cp laws can be both (a) simpler and (b) stronger when reconstructed as generic non-material conditionals. Yet, if sets of cp laws might be a part of the best system of a BSA and thus qualify as proper laws of nature, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least some cp laws qualify as proper laws of nature.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Logical Constant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Indicative Conditional</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trivialization Problem</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Natural Language Generic</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bare Plural</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Erkenntnis</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1930</subfield><subfield code="g">79(2014), Suppl 10 vom: 08. Nov., Seite 1833-1847</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129476242</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)203461-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)01485578X</subfield><subfield code="x">0165-0106</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:79</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:Suppl 10</subfield><subfield code="g">day:08</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1833-1847</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9645-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_130</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4028</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4193</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">79</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">Suppl 10</subfield><subfield code="b">08</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">1833-1847</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400344 |