Philosophical Studies

, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 91–110 | Cite as

Serious metaphysics and the vindication of reductions

Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

What would be sufficient to show of some apparently higher-level property that it is ‘nothing over and above’ some complex configuration of more basic properties? This paper defends a new method for justifying reductions by demonstrating its comparative advantages over two methods recently defended in the literature. Unlike its rivals, what I’ll call “the semantic method” makes a reduction’s truth epistemically transparent without relying on conceptual analyses.

Keywords

Physicalism Dualism Reduction Conceptual analysis Inference to the best explanation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Brie Gertler, Frank Jackson, and Brian McLaughlin and to an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to Sean Foran, Thomas Polger, Gideon Rosen, David Sobel, and David Velleman for helpful discussions of the ideas raised here.

Reference

  1. Block, N., & Stalnaker, R. (1999). Conceptual analysis and the explanatory gap. Philosophical Review, 108, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalmers, D. (1996) The conscious mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dowell, J. L. (forthcoming). A priori entailment and conceptual analysis: making room for type-c physicalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  4. Gertler, B. (2002). Explanatory reduction, conceptual analysis, and conceivability arguments about the mind. Nous, 36, 22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hill, C. (1991). Sensations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. (pp. 4–5). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jackson, F., & Chalmers, D. (2001). Conceptual analysis and reductive explanation. Philosophical Review, 110, 315–360.Google Scholar
  8. Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity (pp. 44–53). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. McLaughlin, B. (2001). In defense of new wave materialism In: C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Ed.), Physicalism and its discontents (pp. 319–330). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McLaughlin, B. (2003). Colour, consciousness, and colour consciousness. In: Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.), Consciousness: New philosophical perspectives. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. McLaughlin, B. (2005). A priori versus a posteriori physicalism. In: C. Nimtz & A. Beckermann (Eds.), Philosophy-science-scientific philosophy, main lectures and colloquia of GAP 5, fifth international congress of the society for analytical philosophy, 2003 (pp. 267–285). Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  12. McLaughlin, B., & Hill, C. (1999). There are fewer things in reality than are dreamt of in Chalmers’s philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69, 445–454.Google Scholar
  13. Shoemaker, S. (1997). Causality and properties. In: D. H. Mellor & A. Oliver (Eds.), Properties (pp. 228–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Stalnaker, R. (2003). On considering a world as actual. In ways a world might be (pp. 188–200). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stich S. (1992). What is a theory of mental representation? Mind, 101, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tye, M. (1992). Naturalism and the mental. Mind, 101, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williamson, T. (2003). The limits of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Yablo, S. (2002). Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. In: T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations