Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T10:43:05.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2021

Andreas Hüttemann
Andreas Hüttemann
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
A Minimal Metaphysics for Scientific Practice , pp. 217 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Albert, D. (2000). Time and Chance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Albert, D. (2015). After Physics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (1984). Metaphysics. In Barnes, J., ed., The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1983). What Is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcroft, N. W. and Mermin, N. D. (1976). Solid State Physics. Philadelphia: Saunders College.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. (2018). Symmetric Dependence. In Bliss, R. and Priest, G., eds., Reality and Its Structure: Essays in Fundamentality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 50–69.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. W. (2011). Emergence, Singularities, and Symmetry Breaking. Foundations of Physics, 41, 1031–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, M. (2010). Interventionism and Epiphenomenalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 40, 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (1995). The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis. In Wolters, G. and Lennox, J. G., eds., Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R. (1993). Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beebee, H. (2018). Philosophical Scepticism and the Aims of Philosophy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 118, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser, F. (2014). The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism 1796–1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K. (2008). Exclusion Again. In Hohwy, J. and Kallestrup, J., eds., Being Reduced. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 280–305.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2005). The Dispositionalist Conception of Laws. Foundations of Science, 10, 353–70.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blanchard, T. and Schaffer, J. (2017). Cause without Default. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C. and Price, H., eds., Making a Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–214.Google Scholar
Bliss, R. (2019). What Work the Fundamental? Erkenntnis, 84, 359–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N. (2003). Do Causal Powers Drain Away? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 133–50.Google Scholar
Bohm, A. (1986). Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Breuer, T. (1995). The Impossibility of Accurate State Self-Measurements. Philosophy of Science, 62 (2), 197–214.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1925). Mind and Its Place in Nature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. (2011). Less Is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled. Foundations of Physics, 41, 1065–135.Google Scholar
Campbell, N. A. and Reece, J. B. (2002). Biology. 6th edn. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
Carrier, M. (1998). In Defense of Psychological Laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 12, 217–32.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2007). Hunting Causes and Using Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2008), Reply to Stathis Psillos. In Hartmann, S., Hoefer, C. and Bovens, L., eds., Nancy Cartwright’s Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. and Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-Based Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Castellani, E. (2003). Symmetry and Equivalence. In Brading, K. and Castellani, E., eds., Symmetries in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 425–36.Google Scholar
Castellani, E. and de Haro, S. (2020). Duality, Fundamentality, and Emergence. In Glick, D., Darby, G. and Marmodoro, A., eds., The Foundation of Reality: Fundamentality, Space and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. (2007) A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. (2013). Review of S. Mumford and R. L. Anjum, ‘Getting Causes from Powers’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 895–9.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S. and Fara, M. (2016). Dispositions. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2016 edn. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/dispositions/Google Scholar
Collins, J., Hall, N. and Paul, L. (2004). Introduction. In Collins, J., Hall, N. and Paul, L., eds., Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
Correia, F. (2008) Ontological Dependence. Philosophy Compass, 3, 1013–32.Google Scholar
Crowther, K. (2020). What Is the Point of Reduction in Science? Erkenntnis, 85, 1437–60.Google Scholar
Danks, D. (2009). The Psychology of Causal Perception and Reasoning. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C. and Menzies, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 447–70.Google Scholar
Darrigol, O. and Renn, J. (2013). The Emergence of Statistical Mechanics. In Buchwald, J. and Fox, R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 765–88.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1985). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. I. Transl. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1991). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. III. Transl. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch and A. Kenny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dizadji-Bahmani, F., Frigg, R. and Hartmann, S. (2010). Who’s Afraid of Nagelian Reduction? Erkenntnis, 73, 393–412.Google Scholar
Dobson, C. M. (2003). Protein Folding and Misfolding. Nature, 426, 884–90.Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2000). Physical Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2009). Causal Process Theories. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C. and Menzies, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–33.Google Scholar
Dresden, M. (1974). Reflections on ‘Fundamentality and Complexity’. In Enz, Ch and Mehra, J., eds., Physical Reality and Mathematical Description. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 133–66.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1986). A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1989). World Enough and Spacetime: Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. and Roberts, J. (1999). Ceteris Paribus, There Is No Problem of Provisos. Synthese, 118, 439–78.Google Scholar
Earman, J., Roberts, J. and Smith, S. (2002). Ceteris paribus lost. In Earman, J. et al., eds., Ceteris paribus laws. Erkenntnis, 52 (Special issue), 281–301.Google Scholar
Eddington, A. (1964). The Nature of the Physical World (Everyman’s Library).London: Dent.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. (1986). On Limit Relations between and Approximate Explanations of Physical Theories. In Marcus, B., Dorn, G. J. W. and Weingartner, P., eds., Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, VII. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 387–403.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. (1997). Examples of Newtonian limits of relativistic spacetimes. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 14: A119–A126.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1921). Geometry and Experience. In Einstein, A. [1983]. Sidelights on Relativity. New York: Dover. pp. 27–56.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1979) Autobiographical Notes. A Centennial Edition, ed. by Schilpp, P. A., Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (2001). Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1962). Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism. In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., eds., Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2003). Causation in a Physical World. In Loux, M. and Zimmerman, D., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 435–60.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1994). Essence and Modality. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 1–16.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1995). The Logic of Essence. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 241–73.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012). What Is Metaphysics? In Tahko, T., ed., Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–25.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (2018). Natural Laws as Dispositions. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974). Special Sciences, or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. Synthese, 28, 97–115.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1991). You Can Fool Some People All of the Time, Everything Else Being Equal; Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanations. Mind, 100, 19–34.Google Scholar
French, S. (2014). The Structure of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1986). Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frisch, M. (2014). Causal Reasoning in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (1954). Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Transl. H. Crew and A. de Salvio. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, S. (2002). Descartes’ System of Natural Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Causal Pluralism. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C. and Menzies, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 326–37.Google Scholar
Hall, N. (2004). Two Concepts of Causation. In Collins, J., Hall, N. and Paul, L., eds., Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 225–76.Google Scholar
Hall, N. (2015). Humean Reductionism about Laws of Nature. In Loewer, B. and Schaffer, J., eds., The Blackwell Companion to David Lewis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 262–77.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (2015). A Modification of the Halpern-Pearl Definition of Causality. In Yang, Q. and Wooldridge, M., eds., Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), Palo Alto: AAAI Press, pp. 3022–33.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. and Pearl, J. (2005). Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part I: Causes. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 56, 843–87.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. and Honoré, A. M. (1959). Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Havas, P. (1974). Causality and Relativistic Dynamics. In Wolfe, H. and Rolnick, W., eds., AIP Conference Proceedings, 16, College Park: AIP Publishing, pp. 23–47.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. (2006). Science as a Guide to Metaphysics? Synthese, 149 (3), 451–70.Google Scholar
Healey, R. (2013). Physical Composition. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 48–62.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1988). Provisoes: A Problem concerning the Inferential Function of Scientific Theories. Erkenntnis, 28, 147–64.Google Scholar
Hicks, M. T. (2018) Dynamic Humeanism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69 (4), 983–1007.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. (2001). The Intransitivity of Causation Revealed in Equations and Graphs. Journal of Philosophy, 98, 273–99.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. (2016). Probabilistic Causation. In Zalta, E. N, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2016 edn. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/causation-probabilistic/.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. and Knobe, J. (2009). Cause and Norm. Journal of Philosophy, 106, 587–612.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. and Woodward, J. (2003). Explanatory Generalizations, Part II, Plumbing Explanatory Depth. Nous, 37, 181–99.Google Scholar
Hoefer, C. and Smeenk, C. (2016). Philosophy of the Physical Sciences. In Humphreys, P., ed., Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–36.Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Kolss, V. (2014). Interventionism and Higher-Level Causation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 28 (1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofweber, T. (2009). Ambitious, Yet Modest, Metaphysics. In Chalmers, D., Manley, D. and Wasserman, R., eds., Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 260–89.Google Scholar
Howard, D. and Stachel, J. (2000). Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879–1909 (Einstein Studies, vol. 8). Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1993). Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions – Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1994). Emergenz versus Reduktion. In Meggle, G. and Wessels, U., eds., Analyomen 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 324–32.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1997). How Properties Emerge. Philosophy of Science, 64, 1–17.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. (1998). Laws and Dispositions. Philosophy of Science, 65, 121–35.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. (2004). What’s Wrong with Microphysicalism? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. (2005). Explanation, Emergence and Quantum-Entanglement. Philosophy of Science, 72, 114–27.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. (2014). Ceteris Paribus Laws in Physics. Erkenntnis, 79, 1715–28.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. (2015). Physicalism and the Part-Whole-Relation. In Bigaj, T. and Wüthrich, C., eds., Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 104, pp. 32–44.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. and Love, A. C. (2011). Aspects of Reductive Explanation in Biological Science: Intrinsicality, Fundamentality, and Temporality. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 62, 519–49.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. and Love, A. C. (2016). Reduction. In Humphreys, P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 460–84.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. and Papineau, D. (2005). Physicalism Decomposed. Analysis, 65, 33–9.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A., Kühn, R. and Terzidis, O. (2015). Stability, Emergence and Part-Whole-Reduction. In Falkenburg, B. and Morrison, M., eds., Why More Is Different: Philosophical Issues in Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Systems. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 169–200.Google Scholar
Ismael, J. (2015). How to Be Humean. In Loewer, B. and Schaffer, J., eds., The Blackwell Companion to David Lewis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 188–205.Google Scholar
Jaag, S. and Loew, C. (2020). Making Best Systems Best for Us. Synthese, 197, 2525–2550.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018–1829-1Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. (1980). Ceteris Paribus Clauses, Closure Clauses and Falsifiability. Journal for the General Philosophy of Science, 10, 16–22.Google Scholar
Joos, E., Zeh, H. D., Kiefer, C., et al. (2003). Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory. 2nd edn. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–53.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997). Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, ed. by Hatfield, G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1999). Critique of Pure Reason, ed. by Guyer, P. and Wood, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2004). Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, ed. by Friedman, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1956). On Reduction. Philosophical Studies, 7, 6–19.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. B. (1995). On the Empirical Foundations of the Quantum No-signalling Proofs. Philosophy of Science, 62, 543–60.Google Scholar
Ketterle, W. (2007). Bose-Einstein Condensation: Identity Crisis for Indistinguishable Particles. In Evans, J. and Thorndike, A. S., eds., Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads – New Perspectives from History, Philosophy and Physics. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 159–82.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1984). Epiphenomenal and Supervenient Causation. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 9, 257–70. Reprinted in Kim, J., ed. (1993) Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–108.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1985). Psychological Laws. In LePore, E. and McLaughlin, B., eds., Actions and Events, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 369–86.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1988). Explanatory Realism, Causal Realism, and Explanatory Exclusion. Midwest Studies of Philosophy, 12, 225–39. Reprinted in Kim, J. (2010). Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 148–66.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1994). Explanatory Knowledge and Metaphysical Dependence. Philosophical Issues 5, 51–69. Reprinted in Kim, J. (2010). Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–86.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (2002). Responses. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 671–80.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism or Something Near Enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. (2004). Are There Laws in the Social Sciences?: Yes. In Hitchcock, C., ed., Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 168–86.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. (2013). Introduction: Pursuing a Naturalist Metaphysics. In Ross, D., Ladyman, J. and Kincaid, H., eds., Scientific Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, G. (1876). Vorlesungen über mathematische Physik: Mechanik. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Kistler, M. (2012). Powerful Properties and the Causal Basis of Dispositions. In Bird, A., Ellis, B. and Sankey, H., eds., Properties, Powers and Structures. Issues in the Metaphysics of Realism. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 119–37.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Külpe, O. (1898). Einleitung in die Philosophie. 2nd ed., Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Kutach, D. (2011). The Asymmetry of Influence. In Callender, C., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 247–75.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. (2012). Science, Metaphysics and Method. Philosophical Studies, 160, 31–51.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. (2007). Every Thing Must Go. Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. (2013). The World in the Data. In Kincaid, H., Ladyman, J. and Ross, D., eds., Scientific Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–50.Google Scholar
Landsman, N. P. (2007). Between Classical and Quantum. In Earman, J. and Butterfield, J., eds., Handbook of the Philosophy of Physics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 417–553.Google Scholar
Lange, M. (1993). Natural Laws and the Problem of Provisos. Erkenntnis, 38, 233–48.Google Scholar
Lange, M. (2009). Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics, and the Laws of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, E. and Loewer, B. (1987). Mind Matters. Journal of Philosophy, 93, 630–42.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). Causation, Postscript to ‘Causation’. In Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–213.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (1999). All Else Being Equal. Philosophy, 74, 155–68.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Livanios, V. (2010). Symmetries, Dispositions and Essences. Philosophical Studies, 148, 295–305.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (2002). Comments on Jaegwon Kim’s Mind and the Physical World. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 655–62.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2011). The Rationality of Metaphysics. Synthese, 178 (1), 99–109.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1872). History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy. Transl. P. E. B. Jourdain (1911). Chicago: The Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1900). Principien der Wärmelehre. Principles of the Theory of Heat: Historically and Critically Elucidated. Transl. T. J. McCormack (1986). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1982). Die Mechanik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftl. Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 245–64.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. (1980). The Cement of the Universe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1998). Part and Whole in Quantum Mechanics. In Castellani, E., ed., Interpreting Bodies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 46–60.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2003). Distilling Metaphysics from Quantum Physics. In Loux, M. and Zimmerman, D., eds., Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 461–87.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2004). Causation, Counterfactuals and the Third Factor. In Collins, J., Hall, N. and Paul, L. (eds), Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 419–43.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2007). The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K. (2011). Arguing against Fundamentality. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42, 244–55.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K. (2019). Fundamentality. In Gibb, S., Hendry, R. and Lancaster, T., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Emergence. London: Routledge, pp. 54–64.Google Scholar
McKitrick, J., Marmodoro, A., Mumford, S., et al. (2013). Causes as Powers. Metascience, 22, 545–59.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. and Bennett, K. (2018). Supervenience. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2018 edn. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/supervenience/.Google Scholar
Menon, T. and Callender, C. (2013). Turn and Face the Strange … Ch-ch-changes: Philosophical Questions Raised by Phase Transitions. In Batterman, R., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–223.Google Scholar
Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and Persons. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1836). On the Definition and Method of Political Economy. In Hausman, D., ed. (2008). The Philosophy of Economics. An Anthology. 3rd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1974). A System of Logic. Ratiocinative and Inductive, Vol. VII and VIII of J. S. Mill. Collected Works, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. (2002). Ceteris Paribus – An Inadequate Representation of Biological Contingency. Erkenntnis, 52, 329–50.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. (2003). Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morganti, M. (2015). Dependence, Justification and Explanation: Must Reality Be Well-Founded? Erkenntnis, 80, 555–72.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. (1998). Dispositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. (2014). Contemporary Efficient Causation: Aristotelian Themes. In Schmaltz, T., ed., Efficient Causation: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 317–39.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. and Anjum, R. L. (2011). Getting Causes from Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1999). The Principia. Transl. I. B. Cohen and A. Whitman. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ney, A. (2012). Neo-Positivist Metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 160 (1), 53–78.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1973). Two Concepts of Intertheoretic Reduction. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 181–201.Google Scholar
Nobel Prize Press Release (2001). Available at: www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2001/press-release/.Google Scholar
Nolan, D. (2016). Method in Analytic Metaphysics. In Cappelen, H., Szabó Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–78.Google Scholar
North, J. (2013). The Structure of a Quantum World. In Albert, D. and Ney, A., eds., The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 184–202.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (2012). Approximation and Idealization: Why the Difference Matters. Philosophy of Science, 79, 207–32.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P. and Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. In Feigl, H., Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G., eds., Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Pap, A. (1949). Elements of Analytical Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Paul, L. (2012). Metaphysics as Modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale. Philosophical Studies, 160 (1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Paul, L. and Hall, N. (2013). Causation: A User’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. and Rey, G. (1995). When Other Things Aren’t Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46, 81–110.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1974). Replies to My Critics. In Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper. La Salle: Open Court Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. (2002). Causation and Explanation. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). Explanation and Reference. In Putnam, H., Mind, Language and Reality, Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–214.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
Reutlinger, A. (2011). A Theory of Non-Universal Laws. International Studies in Philosophy of Science, 25, 97–117.Google Scholar
Reutlinger, A. and Saatsi, J., eds. (2018) Explanation beyond Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reutlinger, A., Schurz, G., Hüttemann, A. and Jaag, S. (2019). Ceteris Paribus Laws. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2017 edn. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/ceteris-paribus/.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (2004). There Are No Laws in the Social Sciences. In Hitchcock, C., ed., Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 168–85.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1988). Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in the Physical Sciences. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39, 295–312.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. and Hardin, L., (1983). Established Theories. Philosophy of Science, 50, 603–17.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction. In Hale, B. and Hoffmann, A., eds., Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 109–36.Google Scholar
Ruben, D. (1990). Explaining Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912/13). On the Notion of Cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13, 1–26.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. (1998). Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2004). Causes Need Not Be Physically Connected to Their Effects: The Case for Negative Causation. In Hitchcock, C., ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. London: Blackwell, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2005). Contrastive Causation. Philosophical Review, 114 (3), 327–58.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: The Priority of the Whole. Philosophical Review, 119 (1), 31–76.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1967). Approaches to Reduction. Philosophy of Science, 34, 137–47.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1969). The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20, 325–48.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1976). Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems. In Cohen, R., Hooker, C., Michalos, A. and Van Evra, J., eds., Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 613–32.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scheibe, E. (1991a). Predication and Physical Law. Topoi, 10, 3–12.Google Scholar
Scheibe, E. (1991b). General Laws of Nature and the Uniqueness of the Universe. In Aggazzi, E. and Cordero, A., eds., Philosophy and the Origin and the Evolution of the Universe. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 341–60.Google Scholar
Scheibe, E. (1999). Die Reduktion Physikalischer Theorien: Teil II, Inkommensurabilität und Grenzfallreduktion. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Scheibe, E. (2006). Die Philosophie der Physiker. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Schelling, F. (1988). Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. (2004). Decoherence, the Measurement Problem, and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Review of Modern Physics, 76, 1267–305.Google Scholar
Scholz, O. (2015). Texte interpretieren – Daten, Hypothesen und Methoden. In Borkowski, J., Descher, S., Ferder, F. and Heine, P., eds., Literatur interpretieren: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Theorie und Praxis. Münster: Mentis, pp. 147–71.Google Scholar
Scholz, O. (2018). Induktive Metaphysik – ein vergessenes Kapitel der Metaphysikgeschichte. In Hommen, D. and Sölch, D., eds., Philosophische Sprache zwischen Tradition und Innovation (Festschrift for Christoph Kann), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 267–89.Google Scholar
Schrenk, M. (2007a). Can Capacities Rescue Us from Ceteris Paribus Laws? In Kistler, M. and Gnassounou, B., eds., Dispositions and Causal Powers. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 221–47.Google Scholar
Schrenk, M. (2007b). The Metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus Laws. Heusenstamm: Ontos.Google Scholar
Schrenk, M. (2010). On the Powerlessness of Necessity. Nous, 44 (4), 725–39.Google Scholar
Schrenk, M. (2011). Interfering with Nomological Necessity. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 577–97.Google Scholar
Schrenk, M. (2016) Metaphysics of Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. (2001). Causal Asymmetry, Independent versus Dependent Variables and the Direction of Time. In Spohn, W., Ledwig, M. and Esfeld, M., eds., Current Issues in Causation. Paderborn: Mentis, pp. 47–67.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. (2002). Ceteris Paribus Laws: Classification and Deconstruction. Erkenntnis, 52, 351–72.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. and Gebharter, A. (2016). Causality as a Theoretical Concept: Explanatory Warrant and Empirical Content of the Theory of Causal Nets. Synthese, 193, 1073–103.Google Scholar
Schuster, J. (2013). Cartesian Physics. In Buchwald, J. and Fox, R., eds., Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–95.Google Scholar
Seide, A. (manuscript). Wilhelm Wundts Logik als Auftakt zu einer induktiven Metaphysik.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. (1980). Causality and Properties. In van Inwagen, P, ed., Time and Cause: Essays Presented to Richard Taylor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 109–35.Google Scholar
Sider, T., Hawthorne, J. and Zimmerman, D. (2007). Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1993). Physics and Chance: Philosophical Issues in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skow, B. (2016). Reasons Why. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. and Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding Our Grasp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, D. (2008). Across the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suárez, F. (1866). Disputationes Metaphysicae. In André, M. and Berton, C., eds., Opera Omnia, Vol. 25 and 26, Paris, reprint 1998. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1970). A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Acta Philosophica Fennica, XXIV, 1–130.Google Scholar
Tahko, T. (2015). An Introduction to Metametaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tahko, T. (2018). Fundamentality. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2018 edn. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/fundamentality/.Google Scholar
Tan, P. (2019). Counterpossible Non-Vacuity in Scientific Practice. Journal of Philosophy, 116, 32–60.Google Scholar
Trogdon, K. (2018). Inheritance Arguments for Fundamentality. In Bliss, R. and Priest, G., eds., Reality and Its Structure: Essays in Fundamentality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182–98.Google Scholar
Tugby, M. (2013). Platonic Dispositionalism. Mind, 122, 451–80.Google Scholar
Uffink, J. (2007). Compendium of the Foundations of Classical Statistical Physics. In Earman, J. and Butterfield, J., eds., Handbook of the Philosophy of Physics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 923–1074.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (2002). The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material Beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vetter, B. (2015). Potentiality. From Dispositions to Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1999). Hans Drieschs Argumente für den Vitalismus. Philosophia Naturalis, 36 (2), 263–93.Google Scholar
Williamson, J. (2009). Probabilistic Theories. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C. and Menzies, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–212.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (2012). Fundamental Determinables. Philosophers’ Imprint, 12 (4), 1–17.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (2014). No Work for a Theory of Grounding. Inquiry, 57, 535–79.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1976). Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account. In Cohen, R. S., ed., Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association-1974, pp. 671–710.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (1992). Realism about Laws. Erkenntnis, 36, 181–218.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2002). There Is No Such Thing as a Ceteris Paribus Law. Erkenntnis, 57, 303–28.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2015). Interventionism and Causal Exclusion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91 (2), 303–47.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2018). Laws: An Invariance-based Account. In Ott, W. and Patton, L., eds., Laws of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 158–80.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. and Hitchcock, C. (2003). Explanatory Generalizations, Part I, A Counterfactual Account. Nous, 37, 1–24.Google Scholar
Zeh, H.-D. (2001). The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time. 4th edn. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Andreas Hüttemann
  • Book: A Minimal Metaphysics for Scientific Practice
  • Online publication: 04 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009023542.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Andreas Hüttemann
  • Book: A Minimal Metaphysics for Scientific Practice
  • Online publication: 04 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009023542.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Andreas Hüttemann
  • Book: A Minimal Metaphysics for Scientific Practice
  • Online publication: 04 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009023542.010
Available formats
×