Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 175, Issue 2, pp 151–168 | Cite as

Defending the piggyback principle against Shapiro and Sober’s empirical approach

  • Joseph A. Baltimore
Article

Abstract

Jaegwon Kim’s supervenience/exclusion argument attempts to show that non-reductive physicalism is incompatible with mental causation. This influential argument can be seen as relying on the following principle, which I call “the piggyback principle”: If, with respect to an effect, E, an instance of a supervenient property, A, has no causal powers over and above, or in addition to, those had by its supervenience base, B, then the instance of A does not cause E (unless A is identical with B). In their “Epiphenomenalism: The Dos and the Don’ts,” Larry Shapiro and Elliott Sober employ a novel empirical approach to challenge the piggyback principle. Their empirical approach pulls from the experiments of August Weismann regarding the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Through an examination of Weismann’s experiments, Shapiro and Sober extract lessons in reasoning about the epiphenomenalism of a property. And according to these empirically drawn lessons, the piggyback principle is a don’t. My primary aim in this paper is to defend the piggyback principle against Shapiro and Sober’s empirical approach.

Keywords

Non-reductive physicalism Supervenience Mental causation Epiphenomenalism Empirical approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Davidson, D. (1970). Mental events. In L. Foster & J. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and theory (pp. 79–101). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, (Reprinted in Essays on actions and events, pp. 207–227, by D. Davidson, Ed., 1980, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Davidson D. (1995) Thinking causes. In: Heil J., Mele A. (eds) Mental causation.. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 3–17Google Scholar
  3. Kim, J. (1989). The myth of nonreductive materialism. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association, 63 (pp. 31–47). Reprinted in Supervenience and mind, pp. 265–284, by J. Kim, Ed., 1993, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kim J. (1995) Can supervenience and ‘non-strict laws’ save anomalous monism?. In: Heil J., Mele A. (eds) Mental causation.. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  5. Kim J. (1998) Mind in a physical world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim J. (2005) Physicalism or something near enough. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. McLaughlin B. (1995) On Davidson’s response to the charge of epiphenomenalism. In: Heil J., Mele A. (eds) Mental causation.. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 27–40Google Scholar
  9. Shapiro L., Sober E. (2007) Epiphenomenalism: The dos and the don’ts. In: Machamer P., Wolters G. (eds) Thinking about causes: From Greek philosophy to modern physics.. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 235–264Google Scholar
  10. Sosa E. (1995) Davidson’s thinking causes. In: Heil J., Mele A. (eds) Mental causation.. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 41–50Google Scholar
  11. Stalnaker R. (1968) A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (eds) Studies in logical theory, American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 98–112Google Scholar
  12. Woodward J. (2003) Making things happen. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations