Philosophical Psychology 22 (5):637-646 (2009)
|Abstract||In this comment, I first point out some problems in McCauley's defense of the traditional conception of general analytical levels. Then I present certain reductionist arguments against explanatory pluralism that are not based on the New Wave model of intertheoretic reduction, against which McCauley is arguing. Reductionists that are not committed to this model might not have problems incorporating research on long-term diachronic processes in their analyses. In the last part of the paper, I briefly compare Robert N. McCauley's conception of reduction to some other current accounts, highlighting the differences between them|
|Keywords||Explanatory Pluralism Reduction Levels|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert McCauley, Reduction: Models of Cross-Scientific Relations and Their Implications for the Psychology-Neuroscience Interface.
Peter Lipton (2008). CP Laws, Reduction, and Explanatory Pluralism. In Jakob Hohwy & Jesper Kallestrup (eds.), Being Reduced: New Essays on Reduction, Explanation, and Causation. Oxford University Press.
Robert McCauley, Enriching Philosophical Models of Cross-Scientific Relations: Incorporating Diachronic Theories.
Robert McCauley, Reduction, Levels of Analysis, and the Contributions of Diachronic Theories of Long Term Processes in Cross-Scientific Relations.
Ingo Brigandt (2013). Explanation in Biology: Reduction, Pluralism, and Explanatory Aims. Science and Education 22:69-91.
Robert N. McCauley (2009). Time is of the Essence: Explanatory Pluralism and Accommodating Theories About Long-Term Processes. Philosophical Psychology 22 (5):611-635.
Jeroen van Bouwel, Erik Weber & Leen de Vreese (2011). Indispensability Arguments in Favour of Reductive Explanations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42 (1):33-46.
Added to index2010-02-04
Total downloads11 ( #99,458 of 549,013 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,013 )
How can I increase my downloads?