Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Semantic indeterminacy and scientific underdetermination.Philip L. Peterson - 1984 - Philosophy of Science 51 (3):464-487.
    Some critics believe Quine's semantic indeterminacy (indeterminacy of radical translation at home as well as abroad) thesis is true, but innocent, since it is just scientific underdetermination in linguistics. The Quinean reply is that in scientific underdetermination cases there are facts of the matter making claims true or false (whether knowable or not), whereas in semantic indeterminacy cases there simply are not. The critics' rejoinder that there are such facts, studied in linguistics, is met by the final reply that linguistics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • What causes effects?Philip L. Peterson - 1981 - Philosophical Studies 39 (2):107 - 139.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Which universals are laws?Philip L. Peterson - 1994 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (4):492 – 496.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Attitudinal opacity.Philip L. Peterson - 1995 - Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (2):159 - 220.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Attitudinal opacity.Philip L. Peterson - 1994 - Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (2):159 - 220.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Which Universal?Philip L. Peterson - 1988 - PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988 (1):24-30.
    D.A. Armstrong’s account (1983, intimately influenced by Tooley 1977 and Swoyer 1982) of natural laws is that they arerelations between universals.Armstrong doesn’t simply hold that laws are some relationships or other between universals. He also holds that they are first-order universals themselves (1983, pp. 89-90). Each ordinary law-say,causallaw-is numerically identical to some first-order universal. This is a striking, seemingly incredible hypothesis. What is Armstrong thinking of when he says (1983, p. 90):I propose that the state of affairs, the law, N(F,G), (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark