Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:47:45.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dispositions Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

William W. Rozeboom
William W. Rozeboom*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subjunctive conditionals have their uses, but constituting the meaning of dispositional predicates is not one of them. More germane is the analysis of dispositions in terms of “bases”—except that past efforts to maintain an ontic gap between dispositions and their bases, while not wholly misguided, have failed to appreciate the semantic birthright of dispositional concepts as a species of theoretical construct in primitive science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 59 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 by 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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Alston, W. P. “Dispositions and occurrences.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1 (1971): 125–154.10.1080/00455091.1971.10716013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Armstrong, D. M. “Dispositions are causes.” Analysis 30 (1969): 23–26.10.1093/analys/30.1.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Bergmann, G. Philosophy of Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[4] Chisholm, R. M. “The contrary-to-fact-conditional.” Mind 55 (1946): 289–307.10.1093/mind/LV.219.289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Coder, D. “Some misconceptions about dispositions.” Analysis 29 (1969): 200–202.10.1093/analys/29.6.200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Harré, R. “Powers.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21 (1970): 81–101.10.1093/bjps/21.1.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Mackie, J. L. “Counterfactuals and causal laws.” in Analytical Philosophy. Edited by Butler, R. J. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962.Google Scholar
[8] Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] O'Shaughnessy, B. “The powerlessness of dispositions.” Analysis 31 (1970): 1–15.10.1093/analys/31.1-2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Rescher, N. “Belief-contravening suppositions.” Philosophical Review 70 (1961): 176–196.10.2307/2183237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Rozeboom, W. W. “Studies in the empiricist theory of scientific meaning.” Philosophy of Science 27 (1960): 359–373.10.1086/287764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Rozeboom, W. W. “Ontological induction and the logical typology of scientific variables.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 337–377.10.1086/287823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Rozeboom, W. W. “Intentionality and existence.” Mind 71 (1962): 15–32.10.1093/mind/LXXI.281.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Rozeboom, W. W. “The factual content of theoretical concepts.” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III. Edited by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[15] Rozeboom, W. W. “Of selection operators and semanticists.” Philosophy of Science 31 (1964): 282–285.10.1086/288012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Rozeboom, W. W. “New dimensions of confirmation theory.” Philosophy of Science 35 (1968): 134–155.10.1086/288198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Rozeboom, W. W. “The crisis in philosophical semantics.” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV. Edited by M. Radner and S. Winokur. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[18] Rozeboom, W. W. “New dimensions of confirmation theory II: The structure of uncertainty.” in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VIII. Edited by R. Buck and R. S. Cohen. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1972.Google Scholar
[19] Rozeboom, W. W. “Scientific inference: The myth and the reality.” in Science, Psychology and Communications: Essays Honoring William Stephenson. Edited by Brown, S. R. and Brenner, D. J. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972.Google Scholar
[20] Rozeboom, W. W. “Problems in the psycho-philosophy of knowledge.” in The Psychology of Knowing. Edited by Royce, J. R. and Rozeboom, W. W. New York: Gordon & Breach, 1972.Google Scholar
[21] Sellars, W. “Counterfactuals, dispositions, and the causal modalities.” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II. Edited by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[22] Squires, R. “Are dispositions lost causes?” Analysis 31 (1970): 15–18.10.1093/analys/31.1-2.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Stevenson, L. “Are dispositions causes?” Analysis 29 (1969): 197–199.10.1093/analys/29.6.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Walters, R. S. “The problem of counterfactuals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 39 (1961): 30–46.10.1080/00048406112341021CrossRefGoogle Scholar