Bibliography

Andreas Hüttemann

doi:10.1017/9781009023542.010

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baumgartner, M. (2010). Interventionism and Epiphenomenalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 40, 359–83.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beiser, F. (2014). The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism 1796–1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/s11229-018–1829-1 Google 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

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive