Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 12, pp 3059–3081 | Cite as

Grounding: it’s (probably) all in the head

  • Kristie MillerEmail author
  • James Norton
Article

Abstract

In this paper we provide a psychological explanation for ‘grounding observations’—observations that are thought to provide evidence that there exists a relation of ground. Our explanation does not appeal to the presence of any such relation. Instead, it appeals to certain evolved cognitive mechanisms, along with the traditional modal relations of supervenience, necessitation and entailment. We then consider what, if any, metaphysical conclusions we can draw from the obtaining of such an explanation, and, in particular, if it tells us anything about whether we ought to posit a relation of ground.

Keywords

Grounding Explanation Metaphysical explanation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Australian Research Council (Grant No. 110100486). With thanks to the following who provided feedback on an earlier draft of this paper: Antony Eagle, Mike Raven, Alastair Wilson, Dana Goswick, and Dan Marshall, as well as the audience of the Explananza 2015 for helpful discussion of these issues, and finally, to David Norton for his meticulous proof reading.

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., & Harkness, A. R. (1983). Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atran, S. (2002). In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Audi, P. (2012). A clarification and defense of the notion of grounding. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality (pp. 101–121). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, J. L. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God?. Plymouth: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1967). Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colyvan, M. (2000). Conceptual contingency and abstract existence. Philosophical Quarterly, 50(198), 87–91.Google Scholar
  8. Colyvan, M. (2001). The indispensability of mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool for an evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hagmayer, Y., Sloman, S., Lagnado, D., & Waldman, M. (2007). Causal reasoning through intervention. In A. Gponik & L. Schultz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy and computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harman, G. (1977). The nature of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kushnir, T., Gopnik, A., Lucas, C., & Schulz, L. (2010). Inferring hidden causal structure. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). The advantage of timely intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 856–876.Google Scholar
  16. Lowe, E. J. (2010). Ontological dependence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2010 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/dependence-ontological/.
  17. Michotte. A. (1956) La Perception de la causalite/Louvain: Institut superieur de la Philosophier. The perception of causality (T. R. Miles, Trans.). London: Metheun.Google Scholar
  18. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference; strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Plato. (2002). Five dialogues: Euthyphro, apology, crito, meno, phaedo (G. M. A. Grube, Trans) (2nd ed.). Revised by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Pyysiäinen, I. (2001). How religion works: Towards a new cognitive science of religion. Cognition and culture book series, 1. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  21. Pyysiäinen, I., & Anttonen, V. (2002). Current approaches in the cognitive science of religion. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Raven, M. J. (2012). In defence of ground. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90(4), 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the belief that arthritis pain is related to the weather. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 93(7), 2895–2896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rigdon, M., Ishii, K., Watabe, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2015). Grounding is not a strict order. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1(3), 517–534.Google Scholar
  26. Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  27. Sayre-McCord, G. (1988) Moral theory and explanatory impotence. In Midwest studies in philosophy (Vol. 12, pp. 433–457) University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schafer, G. (1996). The art of causal conjecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Manley, D. Chalmers, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shaklee, H., & Mims, M. (1982). Sources of error in judging event covariation: Effects of memory demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 208–224.Google Scholar
  31. Shaklee, H., & Tucker, D. (1980). A rule analysis of judgements of covariation between events. Memory and Cognition, 8, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sloman, S. (2005). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smedlund, J. (1963). The concept of correlation in adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Styvers, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., Wagenmakers, E. J., & Blum, B. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 453–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tallant, J. (2015). Ontological dependence in a spacetime-world. Philosophical Studies, 172(11), 3101–3118. doi: 10.1007/s11098-015-0459-4.
  36. Waldmann, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 47–77)., Causal learning San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2013). Causal reasoning. In D. Reisman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, J. J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2013). Why are people so bad at detecting randomness? A statistical argument. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1473–1490.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, J. (2014). No work for a theory of grounding. Inquiry, 57(5–6), 535–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson, A. (forthcoming). Metaphysical causation. Nous.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, The Centre for TimeThe University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyThe University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations