<i>Ceteris Paribus</i>Laws and<i>Minutis Rectis</i>Laws

Fenton-Glynn, Luke

doi:10.1111/phpr.12277

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(148 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The distinction between these two classes of exception is not new: similar distinctions have been made by Fodor (1991), Hoefer (2004), andFenton-Glynn (2016). The distinction is also implicit in the earlier work of Fodor (1974;1989) and Schiffer (1991) (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Schiffer (1991: 7) appears to view such exceptions in this way, saying "certain realizations [of the high-level state described by the generalization] may themselves be among the defeating conditions alluded to in the ceteris paribus clause." in Fenton- Glynn (2016), i argued that such exceptions should not be construed as cases in which the cp clause of the generalization is violated. However, i don't wish to take a stand on this issue here.…”

Section: Exceptions Due To Multiple Realizability (Mr Exceptions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is There High-Level Causation?

Fenton-Glynn¹

2017

Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discovery of causal relations seems a central activity of the high-level sciences, including the special sciences and certain branches of macrophysics. Those same sciences are less successful in formulating exceptionless laws. if causation must be underwritten by exceptionless laws, we are faced with a puzzle. Attempts have been made to dissolve this puzzle by showing that non-exceptionless generalizations can underwrite causal relations. The trouble is that many of these attempts fail to distinguish between two importantly different types of exception of which highlevel scientific generalizations admit. roughly speaking, one is where the values of high-level variables not represented in the generalization are abnormal: call these 'background factor' (bf) exceptions. For example, the ideal Gas Law (iGL) may be significantly violated by a gas if a strong electric current is passed through it. Another is where the high-level states that are represented by variables in the generalization are realized in certain abnormal ways: call these 'mr exceptions' (exceptions having to do with the multiple realizability of high-level states). For example, the pressure of a gas may not be proportional to its temperature and volume in the way that the iGL describes if the initial macrostate of the gas is realized in a certain unusual microphysical way. While existing attempts to show that non-exceptionless generalizations can underwrite causal relations tend to work well where the generalization admits only of bf exceptions, they work less well when the generalizations in question admit-as most high-level scientific generalizations do-of mr exceptions. i argue that the best prospect for resolving the apparent problem posed by mr exceptions is to regard the generalizations which admit of them as approximations to probabilistic generalizations which don't, and which are themselves able to support relations of probabilistic causation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Exceptions Due To Multiple Realizability (Mr Exceptions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There High-Level Causation?

Fenton-Glynn¹

2017

Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

New Horizons in Studying the Cellular Mechanisms of Alzheimer’s Disease

Ehsani

2022

Future of Business and Finance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following an analysis of the state of investigations and clinical outcomes in the Alzheimer’s research field, I argue that the widely accepted ‘amyloid cascade’ mechanistic explanation of Alzheimer’s disease appears to be fundamentally incomplete. In this context, I propose that a framework termed ‘principled mechanism’ (PM) can help remedy this problem. First, using a series of five ‘tests’, PM systematically compares different components of a given mechanistic explanation against a paradigmatic set of criteria and hints at various ways of making the mechanistic explanation more ‘complete’. I will demonstrate these steps using the amyloid explanation, highlighting its missing or problematic mechanistic elements. Second, PM makes an appeal for the discovery and application of ‘biological principles’ that approximate ceteris paribus generalisations or laws and are operative at the level of a biological cell. Although thermodynamic, evolutionary, ecological and other laws or principles from chemistry and the broader life sciences could inform them, biological principles should be considered ontologically unique. These principles could augment different facets of the mechanistic explanation but also allow further independent nomological explanation of the phenomenon. Whilst this overall strategy can be complementary to certain ‘new mechanist’ approaches, an important distinction of the PM framework is its equal attention to the explanatory utility of biological principles. Lastly, I detail two hypothetical biological principles and show how they could each inform and improve the potentially incomplete mechanistic aspects of the amyloid explanation and how they could provide independent explanations for the cellular features associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

show abstract

The Emergence of Better Best System Laws

Schrenk

2017

J Gen Philos Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ceteris ParibusLaws andMinutis RectisLaws

Cited by 6 publications

References 60 publications

Is There High-Level Causation?

Is There High-Level Causation?

New Horizons in Studying the Cellular Mechanisms of Alzheimer’s Disease

The Emergence of Better Best System Laws

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About