Causation, supervenience, and special sciences

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):631-631 (2004)

Graham Frank Macdonald
University of Manchester
Ross & Spurrett (R&S) argue that Kim's reductionism rests on a restricted account of supervenience and a misunderstanding about causality. I contend that broadening supervenience does nothing to avoid Kim's argument and that it is difficult to see how employing different notions of causality helps to avoid the problem. I end by sketching a different solution.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x04260149
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 44,365
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Does the Supervenience Argument Generalize?Suzanne Bliss & Jordi Fernández - 2011 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (4):321-346.
The Supervenience Argument Generalizes.Thomas D. Bontly - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 109 (1):75-96.
Functionalism Without Multiple Supervenience.Ausonio Marras - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):632-632.
Supervenience and Supervenient Causation.Jaegwon Kim - 1984 - Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 22 (S1):45-56.
Causality, Identity and Supervenience in the Mind-Body Problem.Jaegwon Kim - 1979 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4 (1):31-49.
“Causation” is Only Part of the Answer.Matthias Scheutz - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):634-635.


Added to PP index

Total views
39 ( #219,200 of 2,271,616 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #825,223 of 2,271,616 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature