I defend Jerry Fodor's ([ 1991 ]) account of the semantics of ceteris paribus laws against an objection raised by Peter Mott ([ 1992 ]). In doing so, I clarify certain issues regarding the nature of realization. I argue that not all things that realize a state or property are realizers of that state or property: the relation x realizes y tolerates the inclusion of gratuitous elements in x — elements that play no particular role in the realization of y — whereas the relation xis a realizer ofy does not. I then criticize a rejoinder that, in effect, builds such gratuitous elements into the antecedents of the laws of a science of the realized properties.
Conjunctive States, Realization, and Minimal Realization