Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T13:29:19.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What’s the Point of Ceteris Paribus? or, How to Understand Supply and Demand Curves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jennifer S. Jhun
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Philosophers sometimes claim that economics, and the idealizing strategies it employs, is ultimately unable to provide genuine laws of nature. Therefore, unlike physics, it does not qualify as an actual science. Careful consideration of thermodynamics, a well-developed physical theory, reveals substantial parallels with economic methodology. The corrective account of scientific understanding I offer appreciates these parallels: understanding in terms of efficient performance.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 271 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†.

I am especially grateful for extensive feedback from Robert Batterman, Rade Radjenovich, Jim Weatherall, Jim Woodward, Mark Wilson, and several anonymous referees.

References

Bogen, James. 2004. “Analyzing Causality: The Opposite of Counterfactual Is Factual.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (1): 3–26..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 1989. Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 2002. “In Favour of Laws That Are Not Ceteris Paribus after All.” Erkenntnis 57:425–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on the Global Financial System. 2000. “Stress Testing by Large Financial Institutions: Current Practice and Aggregation Issues.” Bank for International Settlements, Basel.Google Scholar
Deisboeck, Thomas S., Wang, Zhihui, Macklin, Paul, and Cristini, Vittorio. 2011. “Multiscale Cancer Modeling.” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 13:127–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorfman, Robert. 1969. “An Economic Interpretation of Optimal Control Theory.” American Economic Review 58 (5): 817–31..Google Scholar
Düppe, Till, and Weintraub, E. Roy. 2014. “Siting the New Economic Science: The Activity Analysis Conference of June 1949.” Science in Context 27 (3): 453–83..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John, and Roberts, John. 1999. “Ceteris Paribus, There Is No Problem of Provisos.” Synthese 118:439–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John, Roberts, John, and Smith, Sheldon. 2002. “Ceteris Paribus Lost.” Erkenntnis 57:281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, Paul, Klein, Judy, Daston, Lorraine, Lemov, Rebecca, Sturm, Thomas, and Gordin, Michael D. 2013. “The Bounded Rationality of Cold War Operations Research.” In How Reason Almost Lost Its Mind: The Strange Career of Cold War Rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard. 1981. “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.” BBC Horizon.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1991. “You Can Fool Some People All of the Time, Everything Else Being Equal: Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanations.” Mind 100:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geithner, Timothy. 2014. Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, Kevin. 2013. “Identity, Structure, and Causal Representation in Scientific Models.” In Towards the Methodological Turn in the Philosophy of Science: Mechanism and Causality in Biology and Economics, ed. Chao, Hsiang-Ke, Chen, Szu-Ting, and Millstein, Roberta, 35–60. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Chao, Hsiang-Ke, Chen, Szu-Ting, and Millstein, Roberta 2015. “Reductionism in Economics: Intentionality and Eschatological Justification in the Microfoundations of Macroeconomics.” Philosophy of Science 82 (4): 689–711..Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily. 1982. “Letter: Academic Economics.” Science 127:104–7.Google Scholar
Luu, Billy L., and Fitzpatrick, Richard C. 2013. “Blood Pressure and the Contractility of a Human Leg Muscle.” Journal of Physiology 591 (21): 5401–12..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machamer, Peter. 2004. “Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18:27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred 1920. Industry and Trade: A Study of Industrial Technique and Business Organization, and of Their Influences on the Conditions of Various Classes and Nations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul, and Rey, Georges. 1995. “When Other Things Aren’t Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46:81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John. 2008. The Law-Governed Universe. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1992. Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander, and Curtain, Tyler. 2013. “What Is Economics Good For?” New York Times, August 24.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1991. “Ceteris paribus Laws.” Mind 100 (1): 1–17..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Sheldon. 2002. “Violated Laws, Ceteris Paribus Clauses, and Capacities.” Synthese 130 (2): 235–64..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2012. “Ceteris Paribus Hedges: Causal Voodoo That Works.” Journal of Philosophy 109 (11): 652–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark. 2018. Physics Avoidance and Other Essays in Conceptual Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2000. “Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2): 197–254..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James 2002. “There Is No Such Thing as a Ceteris Paribus Law.” Erkenntnis 57 (3): 303–28..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James 2004. “Counterfactuals and Causal Explanation.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (1): 41–72..CrossRefGoogle Scholar