David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 106 (2):253-97 (1996)
Amidst the progress being made in the various (sub-)disciplines of the behavioural and brain sciences a somewhat neglected subject is the problem of how everything fits into one world and, derivatively, how the relation between different levels of discourse should be understood and to what extent different levels, domains, approaches, or disciplines are autonomous or dependent. In this paper I critically review the most recent proposals to specify the nature of interdiscourse relations, focusing on the concept of supervenience. Ideally supervenience is a relation between different discourses which has all the advantages of reduction, but without its disadvantages. I apply the more abstract considerations to two concrete cases: schizophrenia and colour. Usually an interlevel or interdiscourse relation is seen as asymmetrical: the overlaying discourse depends on the underlying discourse (and not vice versa), where the out- or un-spoken assumption is that the ultimate underlying discourse is physical. Instead I argue that scientific categories referred to in interdiscourse relations are, ultimately, dependent on common sense categories and common sense normative criteria. It is the manifest categories and common sense ideas about what is reasonable and what is right that determine the relevant categorisations at the deeper, underlying levels. I suggest that the implications of this are not merely methodological or epistemological
|Keywords||Color Discourse Image Science Supervenience Truth|
|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
Daniel A. Bonevac (1988). Supervenience and Ontology. American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (January):37-47.
John Bacon (1986). Supervenience, Necessary Coextensions, and Reducibility. Philosophical Studies 49 (March):163-76.
Robert Stalnaker (1996). Varieties of Supervenience. Philosophical Perspectives 10:221-42.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1995). Varieties of Supervenience. In Elias E. Savellos & U. Yalcin (eds.), Supervenience: New Essays. Cambridge University Press. 16--59.
Terence E. Horgan (1993). From Supervenience to Superdupervenience: Meeting the Demands of a Material World. Mind 102 (408):555-86.
Xiaoping Chen (2011). Various Concepts of “Supervenience” and Their Relations: A Comment on Kim's Theory of Supervenience. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):316-333.
Oron Shagrir (2009). Strong Global Supervenience is Valuable. Erkenntnis 71 (3):417 - 423.
J. van Brakel (2010). Chemistry and Physics: No Need for Metaphysical Glue. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 12 (2):123-136.
J. Brakel (1996). Interdiscourse or Supervenience Relations: The Primacy of the Manifest Image. Synthese 106 (2):253 - 297.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #206,947 of 1,102,917 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #46,874 of 1,102,917 )
How can I increase my downloads?