Anomalous monism, ceteris paribus, and psychological explanation

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (3):389-403 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Davidson has argued that there can be no laws linking psychological states with physical states. I stress that this argument depends crucially on there being no purely psychological laws. All of this has to do with the holism and indeterminacy of the psychological domain. I criticize this claim by showing how Davidson misconstrues the role of ceteris paribus clauses in psychological explanation. Using a model of how ceteris paribus clauses operate derived from Lakatos, I argue that if Davidson is correct, then there can be no purely physical laws either. This is illustrated with a case from immunology involving interferons. Since there clearly are physical laws, Davidson cannot be correct

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Cartwright, Forces, and Ceteris Paribus Laws.Barry Ward - 2009 - Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):55-62.
Ceteris Paribus Laws and Psychological Explanations.Charles Wallis - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:388-397.
In defense of psychological laws.Martin Carrier - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):217-232.
Anomalous Monism and Physical Closure.Nancy Slonneger Hancock - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Research 26 (January):175-185.
Horgan and Tienson on ceteris paribus laws.Marcello Guarini - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (2):301-315.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
103 (#156,436)

6 months
4 (#319,344)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Klee
Ithaca College

Citations of this work

How the Ceteris Paribus Laws of Physics Lie.Geert Keil - 2005 - In Jan Faye, Paul Needham, Uwe Scheffler & Max Urchs (eds.), Nature's Principles. Springer. pp. 167-200.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references