A defence of the explanatory argument for physicalism
Philosophical Quarterly 59 (235):315-324 (2009)
| Abstract | One argument for reductive physicalism, the explanatory argument, rests on its ability to explain the vast and growing body of acknowledged psychophysical correlations. Jaegwon Kim has recently levelled four objections against the explanatory argument. I assess all of Kim's objections, showing that none is successful. The result is a defence of the explanatory argument for physicalism. | |||||||||
| Keywords | physicalism inference to the best explanation explanatory argument kim, jaegwon reduction psychophysical correlation psychophysical identity | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAusonio Marras (2007). Kim's Supervenience Argument and Nonreductive Physicalism. Erkenntnis 66 (3):305 - 327.
Ricardo Restrepo (2012). Two Myths of Psychophysical Reductionism. Open Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):75-83.
Tim Crane (2005). Papineau on Phenomenal Concepts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (1):155-162.
Barbara Montero (2003). The Epistemic/Ontic Divide. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):404 - 418.
Barbara Montero (2003). The Epistemic/Ontic Divide. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):404-418.
Mark T. Nelson (1998). Bertrand Russell's Defence of the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (1):87-100.
Neil Campbell (2010). Explanatory Exclusion and the Intensionality of Explanation. Theoria 76 (3):207-220.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads85 ( #8,674 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,372 of 549,088 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
