Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 303–329 | Cite as

The Method of Levels of Abstraction

  • Luciano Floridi
Article

Abstract

The use of “levels of abstraction” in philosophical analysis (levelism) has recently come under attack. In this paper, I argue that a refined version of epistemological levelism should be retained as a fundamental method, called the method of levels of abstraction. After a brief introduction, in section “Some Definitions and Preliminary Examples” the nature and applicability of the epistemological method of levels of abstraction is clarified. In section “A Classic Application of the Method of Abstraction”, the philosophical fruitfulness of the new method is shown by using Kant’s classic discussion of the “antinomies of pure reason” as an example. In section “The Philosophy of the Method of Abstraction”, the method is further specified and supported by distinguishing it from three other forms of “levelism”: (i) levels of organisation; (ii) levels of explanation and (iii) conceptual schemes. In that context, the problems of relativism and antirealism are also briefly addressed. The conclusion discusses some of the work that lies ahead, two potential limitations of the method and some results that have already been obtained by applying the method to some long-standing philosophical problems.

Keywords

Abstraction Level of abstraction Gradient of abstraction Levelism Observable Stance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Jeff Sanders, who should really be considered a co-author of this paper, with the exception of any of its potential mistakes; Gian Maria Greco, Jesse F. Hughes, Gianluca Paronitti and Matteo Turilli for their discussions of several previous drafts; Paul Oldfield for his editorial suggestions; Carl Craver for having made his forthcoming research available to me; and finally the anonymous referees of the journal for their constructive feedback.

References

  1. Arbib, M. A. (1989). The metaphorical brain 2: Neural networks and beyond. New York, Chichester: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1987). The liar: An essay on truth and circularity. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, P., Erraguntla, M., Delen, D., & Mayer, R. (1998). Simulation modeling and multiple levels of abstraction. In D. J. Medeiros, E. F. Watson, J. S. Carson, & M. S. Manivannan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 391–398). Pistacaway, New Jersey: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  5. Block, N. (1997). Anti-reductionism slaps back. In J. E. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives 11: Mind, causation, and world (pp. 107–133). Oxford, New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, H. C. (1916). Structural levels in the scientist’s world. The Journal of Philosohy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 13(13), 337–345. doi: 10.2307/2012309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craver, C. F. (2004). A field guide to levels, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 77(3).Google Scholar
  8. Craver, C. F. (forthcoming), Explaining the brain: A mechanist’s approach.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47. (Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Representation, pp. 183–198, 1984, Oxford: Clarendon Press. All page numbers to the quotations in the text refer to the reprinted version).Google Scholar
  10. de Roever, W.-P., & Engelhardt, K. (1998). Data refinement: Model-oriented proof methods and their comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. C. (1971). Intentional systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 68, 87–106. doi: 10.2307/2025382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Egyed, A., & Medvidovic, N. (2000). A formal approach to heterogeneous software modeling. In T. Mailbaum (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (Fase 2000, Berlin, Germany, March–April)—Lecture Notes in Computer Science, No. 1783. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Feynman, R. P. (1995). Six easy pieces. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Floridi, L. (2003). On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 287–304. doi: 10.1023/A:1021342422699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Floridi, L. (2004a). Information. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information (pp. 40–61). Oxford, New York: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Floridi, L. (2004b). The informational approach to structural realism. final draft available as IEG—Research Report 22.11.04, http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi/pdf/latmoa.pdf.
  18. Floridi, L. (2004c). On the logical unsolvability of the gettier problem. Synthese, 142(1), 61–79. doi: 10.1023/B:SYNT.0000047709.27594.c4.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Floridi, L. (2005a). Consciousness, agents and the knowledge game. Minds and Machines, 15(3–4), 415–444. doi: 10.1007/s11023-005-9005-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Floridi, L. (2005b). Presence: From epistemic failure to successful observability. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(6), 656–667. doi: 10.1162/105474605775196553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Floridi, L. (forthcoming-a). Information ethics: Its nature and scope. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Moral philosophy and information technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Floridi, L. (forthcoming-b). Levels of abstraction: From computer science to philosophy, Journal of Applied Logic.Google Scholar
  23. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004a). The method of abstraction. In M. Negrotti (Ed.), Yearbook of the artificial—nature, culture and technology, models in contemporary sciences (pp. 177–220). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004b). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379. doi: 10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foster, C. L. (1992). Algorithms, abstraction and implementation: Levels of detail in cognitive science. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. London: Little Brown.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Hales, S. D., & Welshon, R. (2000). Nietzsche’s perspectivism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, I., & Flinn, B. (1993). Specification case studies (2nd ed.). New York, London: Prentice Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Heil, J. (2003). Levels of reality. Ratio, 16(3), 205–221. doi: 10.1111/1467-9329.00218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoare, C. A. R., & He, J. (1998). Unifying theories of programming. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Hughes, P., & Brecht, G. (1976). Vicious circles and infinity: A panoply of paradoxes. London: Cape. Originally published: Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975.Google Scholar
  32. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason repr. w. corr. (trans: Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W., Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  35. McClamrock, R. (1991). Marr’s three levels: A re-evaluation. Minds and Machines, 1, 185–196. doi: 10.1007/BF00361036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mesarovic, M. D., Macko, D., & Takahara, Y. (1970). Theory of hierarchical, multilevel, systems. New York: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. doi: 10.2307/2183914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 87–127. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(82)90012-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Newell, A. (1993). Reflections on the knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 59, 31–38. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90166-9.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). The unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Concepts, theories, and the mind-body problem (Vol. 2, pp. 3–36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  42. Poli, R. (2001). The basic problem of the theory of levels of reality. Axiomathes, 12, 261–283. doi: 10.1023/A:1015845217681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Robinson, J. (1989). Vintage timecharts: The pedigree and performance of fine wines to the year 2000. London: Mitchell Beazley.Google Scholar
  45. Russell, B. (1902). Letter to Frege. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From frege to gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (pp. 124–125). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1967.Google Scholar
  46. Salthe, S. N. (1985). Evolving hierarchical systems: Their structure and representation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Nous, 37(3), 498–517. doi: 10.1111/1468-0068.00448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press. (The text was based on the Karl Taylor Compton lectures, 1968).Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Spivey, J. M. (1992). The Z notation: A reference manual (2nd ed.). New York, London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 4, (pp. 341–376). (Reprinted in Semantics and the Philosophy of Language, by L. Linsky, Ed., 1952, Urbana: University of Illinois Press).Google Scholar
  52. Wimsatt, W. C. (1976). Reductionism, levels of organization and the mind-body problem. In G. Globus, G. Maxwell, & I. Savodnik (Eds.), Consciousness and the brain (pp. 199–267). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Chair in Philosophy of Information and GPIUniversity of HertfordshireHertfordshireUK
  2. 2.St Cross College and IEGUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.School of HumanitiesUniversity of HertfordshireHertfordshireUK

Personalised recommendations