Advertisement

Dispositionalism: Between Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science

Chapter
  • 150 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 417)

Abstract

According to dispositional realism, or dispositionalism, the entities inhabiting our world possess irreducibly dispositional properties – often called ‘powers’ – by means of which they are sources of change. Dispositionalism has become increasingly popular among metaphysicians in the last three decades as it offers a realist account of causation and provides novel avenues for understanding modality, laws of nature, agency, free will and other key concepts in metaphysics. At the same time, dispositionalism is receiving growing interest among philosophers of science. This reflects the substantial role scientific findings play in arguments for dispositionalism which, as a metaphysics of science, aims to elucidate the very foundations of science. In this introductory chapter, I give an overview of the state of the debate and explain the twofold aim of the present collection of essays which is (i) to explore the ontological commitments of dispositionalism and (ii) to discuss these against the background of latest scientific research, by bringing together perspectives from both metaphysics and the philosophy of science. I finally provide a summary of this intellectual journey.

Keywords

Dispositionalism Powers metaphysics Ontological commitments Philosophy of science Metaphysics of science 

References

  1. Anjum, Rani L., and Stephen Mumford. 2018. What Tends To Be: The Philosophy of Dispositional Modality. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1984. Metaphysics. In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, Christopher J. 2017. Evo-devo: A Science of Dispositions. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7 (2): 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, Alexander. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird, Alexander, Brian Ellis, and Howard Sankey, eds. 2012. Powers, Properties and Structures. Issues in the Metaphysics of Realism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn, Simon. 1990. Filling in Space. Analysis 50 (2): 62–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brower, Bruce W. 1993. Dispositional Ethical Realism. Ethics 103 (2): 221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, Nancy. 1989. Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2017. Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, Sungho. 2009. The Conditional Analysis of Dispositions and the Intrinsic Dispositions Thesis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (3): 563–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2018. Dispositions. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/.fall2018/entries/dispositions/. Last accessed on 10 May 2019.
  13. Clarke, Randolph. 2009. Dispositions, Abilities to Act, and Free Will: The New Dispositionalism. Mind 118 (470): 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damschen, Gregor, and Dieter Schönecker. 2003. In dubio pro embrione. Neue Argumente zum moralischen Status menschlicher Embryonen. In Der Moralische Status menschlicher Embryonen. Pro und contra Spezies-, Kontinuums-, Identitäts- und Potentialitätsargument, ed. G. Damschen and D. Schönecker, 187–267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Damschen, Gregor, Robert Schnepf, and Karsten R. Stüber, eds. 2009. Debating Dispositions. Issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Dumsday, Travis. 2016. Dispositionalism and Moral Nonnaturalism. Journal of Value Inquiry 50 (1): 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2019. Dispositionalism and the Metaphysics of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2002. The Philosophy of Nature: A Guide to the New Essentialism. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fara, Michael. 2005. Dispositions and Habituals. Noûs 39 (1): 43–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2008. Masked Abilities and Compatibilism. Mind 117 (468): 843–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groff, Ruth. 2019. Sublating the Free Will Problematic: Powers, Agency and Causal Determination. Synthese 196 (1), 179–200 (Special Issue: Real Possibilities, Indeterminism and Free Will).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1124-y.
  23. Groff, Ruth, and John Greco, eds. 2013. Powers and Capacities in Philosophy. The New Aristotelianism. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Gundersen, Lars. 2010. Tracking, Epistemic Dispositions and the Conditional Analysis. Erkenntnis 72 (3): 535–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Handfield, Toby. 2008. Humean Dispositionalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (1): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———, ed. 2009a. Dispositions and Causes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2009b. The Metaphysics of Dispositions and Causes. In Dispositions and Causes, ed. T. Handfield, 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harré, Rom. 2000. Dispositions and Powers. In A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, ed. W.H. Newton-Smith, 97–101. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Harré, Rom, and Edward H. Madden. 1975. Causal Powers: A Theory of Natural Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Heil, John. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2012. The Universe as We Find It. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hume, David. [1738] 1974. A Treatise of Human Nature, Vol. I, ed. A. D. Lindsay. London/New York: Dent and Dutton.Google Scholar
  33. ———. [1748] 1975. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd ed. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hüttemann, Andreas. 2009. Dispositions in Physics. In Debating Dispositions. Issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind, ed. F. Damschen, R. Schnepf, and K.R. Stüber, 223–237. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Hüttemann, Andreas, and Marie I. Kaiser. 2018. Potentiality in Biology. In Handbook of Potentiality, ed. K. Engelhard and M. Quante, 401–428. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hyman, John. 2014. Desires, Dispositions and Deviant Causal Chains. Philosophy 89 (1): 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingthorsson, Rögnvaldur. 2013. Properties: Qualities, Powers, or Both? Dialectica 67 (1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobs, Jonathan D., ed. 2017. Causal Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Joy, Lynn S. 2013. The Ineliminability of Dispositions in Hume’s Rejection of Causal Powers. In Powers and Capacities in Philosophy. The New Aristotelianism, ed. R. Groff and J. Greco, 69–92. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kistler, Max. This volume. Powers, Dispositions and Laws of Nature. In Dispositionalism. Perspectives from Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science (Synthese Library 417), ed. A. S. Meincke, 171–188. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Kistler, Max, and Bruno Gnassounou, eds. 2007. Dispositions and Causal Powers. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Labuda, Pavol, and Jan Baňas. 2009. Conceptual Analysis of the Potentiality Argument in Favor of Human Embryo’s Right to Life. International Journal of Philosophy: 49–64.Google Scholar
  43. Ladyman, James, and Don Ross. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, David K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 1986. Philosophical Papers, Vol. II. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lowe, E. Jonathan. 2008. Personal Agency. The Metaphysics of Mind and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marmodoro, Anna, ed. 2010. The Metaphysics of Powers. Their Grounding and Their Manifestations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Martin, Charles B. 1997. On the Need for Properties: The Road to Pythagoreanism and Back. Synthese 112: 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ———. 2008. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. McKitrick, Jennifer. 2003a. The Bare Metaphysical Possibility of Bare Dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2): 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2003b. A Case for Extrinsic Dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2): 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 2018. Dispositional Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meincke, Anne Sophie. 2015. Potentialität und Disposition in der Diskussion über den Status des menschlichen Embryos: Zur Ontologie des Potentialitätsarguments. Philosophisches Jahrbuch 122 (2): 271–303.Google Scholar
  54. ———. 2018. Haben menschliche Embryonen eine Disposition zur Personalität? In Der manipulierbare Embryo. Potentialitäts- und Speziesargumente auf dem Prüfstand, ed. M. Rothhaar, M. Hähnel, and R. Kipke, 147–171. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  55. Molnar, George. 2003. In Powers. A Study in Metaphysics, ed. S. Mumford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mumford, Stephen. 1998. Dispositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. ———. 2004. Laws of Nature. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 2006. The Ungrounded Argument. Synthese 149 (3): 471–489.Google Scholar
  59. Mumford, Stephen, and Rani L. Anjum. 2011. Getting Causes from Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. ———. 2014. A New Argument Against Compatibilism. Analysis 74 (1): 20–25.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2015a. Freedom and Control: On the Modality of Free Will. American Philosophical Quarterly 52 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 2015b. Powers, Non-Consent and Freedom. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (1): 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mumford, Stephen, and Matthew Tugby, eds. 2013a. Metaphysics and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. ———. 2013b. What is the Metaphysics of Science? In Metaphysics and Science, ed. S. Mumford and M. Tugby, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O’Connor, Timothy. 2009. Agent-Causal Power. In Dispositions and Causes, ed. T. Handfield, 189–214. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  66. Psillos, Stathis, Benjamin Hill, and Henrik Lagerlund, eds. Forthcoming. Causal Powers in Science: Blending Historical and Conceptual Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Robinson, Luke. 2006. Moral Holism, Moral Generalism, and Moral Dispositionalism. Mind 115 (458): 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. ———. 2011. Moral Principles as Moral Dispositions. Philosophical Studies 156 (2): 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schrenk, Markus. 2017. Metaphysics of Science. A Systematic and Historical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Shoemaker, Sydney. [1980] 2003. Causality and Properties. Repr. In Identity, Cause and Mind, expanded edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 206–233.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, Michael. 2004. Rational Capacities. In Ethics and the A Priori, 114–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spann [née Meincke], Anne Sophie and Daniel Wehinger, eds. 2014. Vermögen und Handlung. Der dispositionale Realismus und unser Selbstverständnis als Handelnde. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  73. Steward, Helen. 2012. A Metaphysics for Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thompson, Ian J. 1988. Real Dispositions in the Physical World. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (1): 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vetter, Barbara. 2015. Potentiality. From Dispositions to Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vihvelin, Kadri. 2004. Free Will Demystified: A Dispositional Account. Philosophical Topics 32 (1/2): 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ———. 2013. Causes, Laws, and Free Will. Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Williams, Neil E. 2019. The Powers Metaphysic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Yalowitz, Steven. 2000. A Dispositionalist Account of Self-Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2): 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yates, David. 2016. Is Powerful Causation an Internal Relation? In The Metaphysics of Relations, ed. A. Marmodoro and D. Yates, 138–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of Life Sciences (Egenis)University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations