 The denial of strict laws of these forms is consistent with allowing hedged versions of them which are qualified by a ceteris paribus clause. ‘All things being equal’ or ‘under normal conditions’, such psychological and psychophysical generalizations can, according to Davidson, be justifiably asserted (Davidson 1993, 9). As will be discussed below  (4),  denying the strict version of these generalizations amounts to denying that the qualifying clause ‘ceteris paribus’ can be fully explicated. That is, ‘ceteris paribus, ((M1 &amp;  M2) → P1)’ cannot be transformed into something like ‘(P2 &amp; P3 &amp;  M1 &amp; M2 &amp; M3) →  P1’ (for a related discussion of this particular issue, see the debate between Schiffer 1991 and Fodor 1991).