Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-07T15:41:36.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceteris Paribus Laws and Psychological Explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Charles Wallis
Charles Wallis*
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two important components of Fodor's philosophy of cognitive science rely heavily upon ceteris paribus laws, thus requiring that Fodor forward an analysis of ceteris paribus laws. First, because Fodor has long held (1975, 1990) that all of the laws of the special sciences are ceteris paribus laws, he must demonstrate the scientific legitimacy of ceteris paribus laws. Second, ceteris paribus laws play a prominent role in Fodor's most recent (1990) theory of representational content, and solution to the “disjunction problem,” a well-known problem for his approach. Fodor recently (1991a) offered an analysis of ceteris paribus laws for the special sciences (particularly cognitive science). I ask two questions with regard to Fodor's analysis: Does the analysis underwrite Fodor's theory of representation? Does the analysis provide adequate solutions to the problems for ceteris paribus laws as articulated by Hempel (1965, 1988) and Giere (1988)? I answer both questions negatively.

Type
Part X. Games, Explanations, Authority, and Justification
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 388 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am indebted to the Mellon foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and to colleagues at the University of Rochester and the University of Arizona.

References

Churchland, P. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1989), Meaning and Mental Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974), “Special Sciences,” in Synthese. 28: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1988), Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1990), ‘Theory of Content, II: The Theory,” in A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1990a), “Psychosemantics,” in Lycan, W. (ed.) Mind and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1991), “Replies,” in Rey, G and Loewer, B (eds.) Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1991a), “Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanation,” in Mind. 100: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1988), “Laws, Theories, and Generalizations,” in Grunbaum, A. and Salmon, W., eds., The Limits of Deductivism. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1988), “Provisos,” in Grunbaum, A. and Salmon, W., eds., The Limits of Deductivism. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973), Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1990), Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1976), “Foreword,” in Reichenbach, H. (1954) Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wallis, C. (1993), “T II: Judgement Day,” unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Wallis, C. (1992), “Asymmetric Dependence and Mental Representation,” in Psycoloquy (3) 70.Google Scholar