References
- Cartwright, N. 1997. Where do laws of nature come from? Dialectica51, 65-78.
- Cartwright, N. 2002. In favor of laws that are not ceteris paribus after all. Erkenntnis 57, 425-439.10.1023/A:1021550815652
- Child, W. 1993. Anomalism, uncodifiability, and psychophysical relations. Philosophical Review102, 215-24510.2307/2186038
- Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Davidson, D. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Davidson, D. 1995. Thinking causes. In Mental Causation, ed. by J. Heil and A. Mele. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3-17.
- Davidson, D. 2004. Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198237545.001.0001
- Earman, J., and Roberts, J. 1999. Ceteris paribus, there is no problem of provisos. Synthese118, 439-478.10.1023/A:1005106917477
- Earman, J., Roberts, J. and Smith, S. 2002. Ceteris paribus lost. Erkenntnis57, 281-301.10.1023/A:1021526110200
- Fodor, J. 1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Fodor, J. 1991. You can fool some of the people all of the time, everything else being equal; Hedged laws and psychological explanations, Mind100, 1991, 19-34.10.1093/mind/C.397.19
- Goldman, A. 1995. Interpretation psychologized. In Folk Psychology, ed. by M. Davies and T. Stone. Oxford: Blackwell, 74-99.
- Gordon, R. 1995. Folk psychology as simulation. In Folk Psychology, ed. by M. Davies and T. Stone. Oxford: Blackwell, 60-73.
- Heal, J., 2003. Mind, Reason, and Imagination: Selected Essays in Philosophy of Mind and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Hempel, C. 1988. Provisos: A problem concerning the inferential functions of scientific laws. In The Limits of Deductivism, ed. by A. Grünbaum and W. Salmon. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, 19-36.
- Horgan, T. and Tienson, J. 1996. Connectionism and philosophy of psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Kim, J. 1993. Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kim, J. 1995. Can supervenience and ‘non-strict laws’ save anomalous monism? In Mental Causation, ed. by J. Heil and A. Mele. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19-26.
- Kim, J. 1998. Reasons and the first person. In Human Action, Deliberation and Causation, ed. by J. Bransen and S. Cuypers. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 67-87.
- Kincaid, J. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kincaid, J. 2004. There are laws in the social sciences. In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, ed. by C. Hitchcock. Oxford: Blackwell, 168-185.
- Lange, M. 1993. Natural laws and the problem of provisos. Erkenntnis38: 233-248.10.1007/BF01128982
- Lange, M. 2002. Who’s affraid of ceteris-paribus laws? Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love them, Erkenntnis57, 131-147.
- McDowell, J. 1998. Mind, Value and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Pietroski, P. and Rey, G. 1995. When other things aren’t equal: Saving ceteris paribus laws from vacuity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science46, 81-110.
- Roberts, J. 2004. There are no laws of the social sciences. In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, ed. by C. Hitchcock. Oxford: Blackwell, 151-167.
- Schiffer, S. 1991. Ceteris paribus laws. Mind100, 1-17.10.1093/mind/C.397.1
- Woodard, J. 2000. Explanation and invariance in the special sciences. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science51, 197-254.
- Woodard, J. 2002. There is no such thing as a ceteris paribus law. Erkenntnis57, 27-52.