Does the supervenience argument generalize?

Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (4):321-346 (2011)
Abstract
We evaluate the scope of Jaegwon Kim's “supervenience argument” for reduction. Does its conclusion apply only to psychology, or does it generalize to all the special sciences? The claim that the supervenience argument generalizes to all the special sciences if it goes through for psychology is often raised as an objection to the supervenience argument. We argue that this objection is ambiguous. We distinguish three readings of it and suggest that some of them make it a plausible claim, whereas other readings make it implausible. We suggest that this ambiguity is the result of picturing the world as being hierarchically organized in levels, with the domain of physics at the bottom and the domains of the social sciences at the top. The plausibility of the objection depends on how we think of this picture. This popular picture, we suggest, involves three different dimensions along which reduction may occur
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00080.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,861
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Naming and Necessity.Saul A. Kripke - 1980 - Harvard University Press.
Physicalism, or Something Near Enough.Jaegwon Kim - 2005 - Princeton University Press.
Naming and Necessity.Saul Kripke - 2010 - In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 431-433.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Supervenience Argument Generalizes.Thomas D. Bontly - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 109 (1):75-96.
Kim's Supervenience Argument and the Nature of Total Realizers.Douglas Keaton - 2012 - European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2):243-259.
Causation, Supervenience, and Special Sciences.Graham Macdonald - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):631-631.
Concepts of Supervenience.Jaegwon Kim - 1984 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45 (December):153-76.
Varieties of Supervenience.Brian P. McLaughlin - 1995 - In Elias E. Savellos & U. Yalcin (eds.), Supervenience: New Essays. Cambridge University Press. pp. 16--59.
Explaining Supervenience.Nick Zagwill - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Research 22:509-518.
“Causation” is Only Part of the Answer.Matthias Scheutz - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):634-635.
Supervenience and Reductive Physicalism.Erhan Demircioglu - 2011 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 7 (1):25-35.
Varieties of Supervenience.Brian P. McLaughlin - 1994 - In Elias E. Savellos & Ümit D. Yalçin (eds.), Savellos, E.; Yalchin, O. (Eds.) Supervenience. Cambridge University Press. pp. 16--59.
Added to PP index
2011-12-03

Total downloads
55 ( #103,689 of 2,210,666 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #391,865 of 2,210,666 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature