David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Diametros 30 (30):76-92 (2011)
This paper explores some issues concerning the relation between ontological reduction and conceptual reduction, as construed by the physicalists. More specifically, it aims at highlighting and analyzing certain general methodological and ethical implications of the physicalistic research projects. Against this background, the paper identifies a certain category of concepts as “irreducibly holistic”, that is, those with regard to which ontological and conceptual reduction are inextricably bound together. Further, the paper argues that since irreducibly holistic concepts are conceptually irreducible to the physical, they have to be ontologically irreducible to the physical as well, thus rendering physicalism false. This conclusion is reached by analyzing and then rejecting a variety of programmes aimed at accommodating irreducibly holistic concepts within a physicalist framework (including eliminativism, preservative irrealism and quasi-realism). Lastly, an ontologically pluralistic framework is proposed for the purpose of reconciling apparently conflicting insights from different areas of philosophical and scientific inquiry.
|Keywords||physicalism holism reduction emergence supervenience eliminativism quasi-realism|
|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
Michael Esfeld (1999). Physicalism and Ontological Holism. Metaphilosophy 30 (4):319-337.
Andrew Melnyk (1991). Physicalism: From Supervenience to Elimination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (September):573-87.
J. Butterfield (2011). Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape. [REVIEW] Foundations of Physics 41 (6):920-959.
Paul Sheehy (2003). Social Groups, Explanation and Ontological Holism. Philosophical Papers 32 (2):193-224.
Ansgar Beckermann (1992). Supervenience, Emergence, and Reduction. In Ansgar Beckermann, Hans Flohr & Jaegwon Kim (eds.), Emergence or Reduction?: Prospects for Nonreductive Physicalism. De Gruyter 94--118.
Ausonio Marras (2007). Kim's Supervenience Argument and Nonreductive Physicalism. Erkenntnis 66 (3):305 - 327.
Tim Crane (2000). Dualism, Monism, Physicalism. Mind and Society 1 (2):73-85.
Lee McIntyre (2007). Emergence and Reduction in Chemistry: Ontological or Epistemological Concepts? Synthese 155 (3):337-343.
Ronald P. Endicott (2007). Reinforcing the Three ‘R's: Reduction, Reception, and Replacement. In M. Schouten & H. Looren de Jong (eds.), The Matter of the Mind: Philosophical Essays on Psychology, Neuroscience, and Reduction. Blackwell
Bradford Petrie (1987). Global Supervenience and Reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (September):119-30.
Jaegwon Kim (2006). Emergence: Core Ideas and Issues. Synthese 151 (3):547-559.
Ausonio Marras (2006). Emergence and Reduction: Reply to Kim. Synthese 151 (3):561-569.
Michael Patrick Seevinck (2004). Holism, Physical Theories and Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 35 (4):693-712.
Tim Crane & D. H. Mellor (1990). There is No Question of Physicalism. Mind 99 (394):185-206.
Added to index2012-09-29
Total downloads22 ( #181,739 of 1,934,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #66,510 of 1,934,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?