David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 48 (2):101-122 (2000)
Many have felt that it is impossible to defend autonomous laws of social science: where the regularities upheld are law-like it is argued that they are not at base social scientific, and where the phenomena to be explained would seem to require social descriptions, it is argued that laws governing the phenomena are unavailable at that level. But is it possible to develop an ontology that supports the dependence of the social on the physical, while nonetheless supporting the explanatory power of genuinely autonomous social scientific laws? The aim of this paper is to show that reductive explanation is not a requirement of a `naturalist' ontology, thereby defending an account of supervenience as a suitable framework within which to recognize a metaphysical relationship between the natural and the social that is consistent with the pursuit of autonomous nomological social scientific explanations
|Keywords||Reduction Social Science Laws Supervenience|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Elijah Weber (2012). Context-Dependence in Searle's Impossibility Argument: A Reply to Butchard and D'Amico. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (3):433-444.
William Butchard & Robert D'Amico (2011). "Counting As" a Bridge Principle: Against Searle Against Social-Scientific Laws. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (4):455-469.
Harold Kincaid (1990). Defending Laws in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 20 (1):56?83.
Lee C. McIntyre (2004). Redescription and Descriptivism in the Social Sciences. Behavior and Philosophy 32 (2):453 - 464.
Martin Bunzl (1987). Reductionism and the Mental. American Philosophical Quarterly 24 (April):181-9.
John R. Searle (1991). Intentionalistic Explanations in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21 (3):332-344.
Marc Lange (2000). Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford University Press.
Lee C. McIntyre (1993). Complexity and Social Scientific Laws. Synthese 97 (2):209 - 227.
Lee McIntyre (1999). Davidson and Social Scientific Laws. Synthese 120 (3):375-394.
Johannes Persson (2012). Mechanistic Explanation in Social Contexts: Elster and the Problem of Local Scientific Growth. Social Epistemology 26 (1):105-114.
Jessica M. Wilson (2005). Supervenience-Based Formulations of Physicalism. Noûs 39 (3):426-459.
Igor Hanzel (2008). Idealizations and Concretizations in Laws and Explanations in Physics. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (2):273-301.
Jaegwon Kim (1978). Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables. American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (April):149-56.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads29 ( #136,591 of 1,906,940 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #54,071 of 1,906,940 )
How can I increase my downloads?