Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability

property.
That is to say, for every sufficiently long interval, the relative
frequency satisfies the same condition (e.g. greater than 0.5) as the limiting
relative frequency over the history as a whole. Yet, it is obviously possible
to partition a domain in other ways, not simply according to time. Do other
partitions play a role in the evaluation of generics and frequency statements?
The answer to this question, I claim, is yes. While frequency adverbs
require their domain to be homogeneous only with respect to the time partition,
generics require homogeneity with respect to a great number of other
partitions as well. Before presenting arguments for this claim, we should note
that it seems to correspond rather well to the pre-theoretical notion of what
a generic sentence means. Lowe (1991), for example, considers (28):
(28) Fido chases cats
He writes:
The sort of empirical evidence which would support or undermine the
truth of [(28)] is a matter that is broadly familiar to us all (though it is
by no means a simple matter). If Fido is found to chase a good many
different individual cats, of varying sizes, colours, ages and temperaments,
then, ceteris paribus, we shall consider [(28)] to be empirically
well supported; if not, then not (p. 295, original emphases).
Lowe’s observation makes intuitive sense. Note that what this means is that
it is not sufficient for Fido to chase many cats, but that he should chase
cats of many varieties.
That is to say, the domain of the generic has to
36