Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences

More documents

Recommendations

Info

physics is not able to make, since physics does not dispose of the conceptual means to carry out such abstractions (cf. Kitcher 1981). Yet this unification by abstraction from physical details remains opaque so long as we lack a systematic link to physics. If we adhere to ontological reductionism and the completeness of physics, everything causally efficacious can be considered in terms of physics; therefore, the inability to generate a systematic link between biological concepts (law-like generalizations) and physics is a major epistemological blow to biology. What this means is that biological concepts are fundamentally unintelligible from the physics standpoint. This, in turn, casts doubt upon the scientific credibility of biological concepts. In other words, even if we cast our problem in epistemological terms, in the end, we can’t coherently construct a “soft” autonomy for biology without introducing conceptual incoherence into ontological reductionism. Given this way of stating the problem, it is obvious that, in order to save our ontologically reductionist program, we are going to have to find a conceptual schema that allows for making systematic links between biology and physics. The two main reductionist approaches do just this, but, as I will show, they are both vulnerable to criticism. The two main approaches are: a, that suggested by Lewis and Kim, entailing the construction of concepts that are semi-physical-semifunctional ones, coextensive with physical concepts (see Lewis 1980, Kim 1998, 93-95); and, b., that suggested by Bickle, the construction of physical theories that are partly coextensive with the special science theory in question (Bickle 1998). For instance, one may construct a gene concept that includes physical criteria in order to be coextensive with the physical concept in question or one may construct a physical genetic theory that refers to all and only the entities described by genetics within a certain species. Evidently, the two approaches contain enough overlaps to be combined. Let us take for granted for the purposes of argument that one can ascribe a scientific quality to the semiphysical-semi-functional concepts (something not trivial). Does this get us from the abstract concept B to terms of physics (P 1 , P 2 , P 3 , etc.)? Since biology only works with functional concepts, but not with concepts specified by physical criteria, it is puzzling how Kim’s semi-physicalsemi-functional concepts could serve as bridge principles, since it only seems to repeat the problem in other terms. This is why it remains unintelligible, from the biological point of view, how the salient similarities brought out by B can be brought out by the semi-physical-semi-functional concepts without this resulting in a conflict with ontological reductionism and the completeness of physics. Kim does not give us a mechanism whereby it is possible to abstract from the physical part of the semi-physical-semi-functional concepts, and hence it remains unclear how B can causally explain something. Against this background, we might want to make the radical move of replacing biology tout court with physical Ersatz theories. This is in fact Bickle’s solution: the construction of physical theories that are, taking together, co-extensional with the biological theory in question. In other terms, one constructs several physical theories with applicable physical concepts (applicable in the sense that they cover target objects) that are co-extensional with biological concepts (which target the same objects). Since bridge-principles are still missing, this approach as well does not make intelligible how abstract biological concepts and law-like generalizations could be vindicated. This Scientific Pragmatic Abstractions — Christian Sachse approach by Bickle (and Hooker) is more general than the approach of Kim (and Lewis), but it also ends up in suggesting the elimination of biology. III. Reductionist framework without elimination Because of multiple reference, the starting point is that tokens of physical property configurations that come under the functionally defined biological concept B may be described by different physical concepts (P1, P2, P3, etc.). This implies that there is a causal difference among the physical configuration tokens coming under a single functional concept B (Kim 1999). In other words, there are different ways to bring about the effects on which the functional concept B focuses (Esfeld & Sachse 2007), as, for instance, in the difference created by a phylogenetic effect that elevates the rate of the reproduction of one gene over another. From the physical point of view, there is thus a difference in the production of side effects that are systematically linked with the main effects (characterizing B) in question. The differences resulting from side effects can be detected from the biological point of view in a given physical environment, thus giving it standing as a scientific fact. This can be illustrated by, for instance, the empirical data with which genetics deals, which is often cited as a classical case of multiple realization (reference). It can be shown that differences between DNA sequences that come under a single gene concept (multiple reference) are linked to different molecular ways to bring about the effect on which the gene concept in question focuses (causal implication of compositional differences). These different ways to produce characteristic effects in question are systematically linked with side effects such as the speed or the accuracy of the protein production (see Bulmer 1991) that can be salient for selection. To put it in other terms, it is possible to construct purely functionally defined biological concepts that are nonetheless coextensive with the physical concepts. This means, for any concept B, it is possible to construct functional sub-concepts B1, B2, B3, etc. coextensive with the physical concepts P1, P2, P3, etc. Since any physical difference accounting for multiple reference leads to side effects that can be in principle detected from the biological perspective, there thus is a nomological coextensionality (Sachse 2007, 138-152). The following figure may help to illustrate the most important steps in this argument. Note that the construction of such functional sub-concepts is first and foremost an intermediate step in order to establish bridge-principles. The important thing here is that we can show that the biological concepts have a non-opaque 287
scientific status in that the sub-concepts are coextensive with physical concepts, even though all of them may not be of any particular biological interest. Let me thus call this their possible scientific status. By this means, we can bootstrap upwards to establish the scientific status of the more abstract concept B. To put it in other terms, since any token coming under the abstract biological functional concept B also comes under a functional sub-concept whose scientific quality would prima facie not be opaque, B cannot be opaque either in as much as the only difference between B and one of its sub-concepts (B1, B2, B3, etc.) is the degree of abstraction within a purely functional theory. A sub-concept brings out the same salient similarity as does its more abstract concept (its relevance here being defined in the context of selection under normal conditions) while also adding a functional detail (side effect that is salient for selection under special conditions) that is linked to this outlined salient similarity (B1 = “B + Bminor”). Since the matter is so crucial, let me stress here that both the abstract concept and its sub-concepts are constructed in terms of one single theory, such that the abstraction from side effects is a purely theory-immanent matter with a conceptual linkage. Thus, under this schema, we clarify the assumed scientificity of the abstract unifying concepts of biology (for instance, a certain gene concept that accommodates the fact that the gene tokens are physically different), as we cannot do in the other reductionist approaches. There are now bridge-principles sufficient to make the abstraction step intelligible. This philosophical foundation will help to normalize the undoubted pragmatic advantage of biology as a special science within a unified conceptual schema that retains the completeness of physics and ontological reductionism. Biology is scientific because of the systematic link to physics, and objective because the outlined biological salient similarities are those that exist in our world as they depend on biological evolution by means of natural selection. Its abstract functional concepts, integrated within the proposed reductionist framework of constructing functional sub-concepts, counter the twin threats of epiphenomenalism and eliminativism. Abstract biological concepts can be systematically linked with physics. This does not ratify the claim of the indispensable character of biology, since that does not seem to be compatible with the completeness of physics and ontological reductionism, but it does give us pragmatic wiggle room – one can now argue that the pragmatic value of biology is scientific and objective. Biological concepts and the abstract law-like generalizations governing them bring out salient similarities among entities that are physically different. This is the epistemological power belonging to biology alone: its ability to explain biological evolution in homogeneous terms that can’t be selected from a wholly physics-based point of view. Hence, there is no positive argument left for the eliminativist approach to biology. Which gives us what we want: biology is the more unifying theory about a certain ensemble of entities (the living beings) while physics is the more unifying theory in general but not as concerns the living beings. To sum up and conclude: there is a strong causal argument in favour of ontological reduction. Based on this argument and the completeness of physics, the standard anti-reductionist argument of multiple realization faces the dilemma that it apparently leads to either epiphenomenalism or eliminativism with regard to biology, that is, in respective to its status as a science. In order to avoid these consequences, we show that a systematic link between biology (and other special sciences) and physics is philosophically and empirically possible by means of the 288 Scientific Pragmatic Abstractions — Christian Sachse construction of functional sub-concepts that are coextensive with (in the last resort) constructed physical concepts. Based on this systematic link to physics, the scientific quality of biology and its abstract concepts is no longer opaque. This should not be taken as a warrant to regard biology as indispensable, given the principles of the completeness of physics and ontological reductionism, but it does show that, within our proposed reductionist framework, biology accrues standing as a objective, pragmatic science, which conceptualizes parts of the world (living systems) with abstract unificationary concepts that have no equivalent in physics. Literature Bickle, John 1998 Psychoneural reduction: the new wave. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press. Bulmer, Michael 1991 “The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage”. Genetics 129, pp. 897-907. Chalmers, David J. 1996 The conscious mind. In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dobzhansky, Thedosius 1973 “Nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution”. American Biology Teacher, 35: pp. 125-129. Ehrlich, Paul 2000 Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Washington DC: Island Press. Endicott, Ronald P. 1998 “Collapse of the new wave”. Journal of Philosophy 95, pp. 53-72. Esfeld, Michael & Sachse, Christian 2007 “Theory reduction by means of functional sub-types”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21, pp. 1-17. Fodor, Jerry A. 1974 “Special sciences (or: the disunity science as a working hypothesis)”. Synthese, 28, pp. 97-115. Hooker, Clifford A. 2004 “Asymptotics, reduction and emergence”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55, pp. 435-479. Kim, Jaegwon 1998 Mind in a physical world. An essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press. Kim, Jaegwon 1999 “Making sense of emergence”. Philosophical Studies 95, pp. 3-36. Kim, Jaegwon 2005 Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kitcher, Philip 1981 “Explanatory unification”. Philosophy of Science 48, pp. 507-531. Lewis, David 1980 “Mad pain and Martian pain”. In: N. Block (ed.): Readings in the philosophy of psychology. Volume 1. London: Methuen. Pp. 216-222. MacDonald, Cynthia, MacDonald, Graham 1986 “Mental causes and explanation of action”. Philosohical Quarterly 36, pp. 145-58. Putnam, Hilary 1967 / 1975 “The nature of mental states”. In: H. Putnam (ed.) 1975 Mind, language and reality. Philosophical papers. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 429-440. First published as “Psychological predicates” in W. H. Capitan and D. D. Merrill (eds.) 1967 Art, mind and religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Sachse, Christian 2007 Reductionism in the philosophy of science. Franfurt: Ontos Verlag. Weber, Marcel 2005 Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Page 1 and 2:
31 Alexander Hieke Hannes Leitgeb H
Page 3 and 4:
Reduktion und Elimination in Philos
Page 5 and 6:
Distributors Die Österreichische L
Page 7 and 8:
6 Inhalt / Contents Wittgenstein me
Page 9 and 10:
8 Inhalt / Contents The Evolution o
Page 12 and 13:
Formal Mechanisms for Reduction in
Page 14 and 15:
4. Property language and theoretica
Page 16 and 17:
imperatives, or commands in the for
Page 18 and 19:
Referential Practice and the Lure o
Page 20 and 21:
The Augustinian account confuses mo
Page 22 and 23:
hurried to fix it on the page. The
Page 24 and 25:
The Essence (?) of Color, According
Page 26 and 27:
Literature Austin, James 1980 “Wi
Page 28 and 29:
Wittgenstein’s Externalism - Gett
Page 30 and 31:
Informal Reduction E.P. Brandon, Ca
Page 32 and 33:
An Anti-Reductionist Argument Based
Page 34 and 35:
An Anti-Reductionist Argument Based
Page 36 and 37:
Did I Do It? -Yeah, You Did! Wittge
Page 38 and 39:
Literature Did I Do It? -Yeah, You
Page 40 and 41:
tween the two approaches. The task
Page 42 and 43:
On Two Recent Defenses of The Simpl
Page 44 and 45:
On Two Recent Defenses of The Simpl
Page 46 and 47:
Queen Victoria’s Dying Thoughts T
Page 48 and 49:
Diagonalization. The Liar Paradox,
Page 50 and 51:
Proof: Given a function ƒ from con
Page 52 and 53:
that I am sure that it is true that
Page 54 and 55:
experiencing something as a red pen
Page 56 and 57:
There can be Causal without Ontolog
Page 58 and 59:
There can be Causal without Ontolog
Page 60 and 61:
objects. But they also leave unansw
Page 62 and 63:
The Knower Paradox and the Quantifi
Page 64 and 65:
The Knower Paradox and the Quantifi
Page 66 and 67:
lent. It also implies that an inven
Page 68 and 69:
The Scapegoat Theory of Causality M
Page 70 and 71:
We may have evolved a specialized c
Page 72 and 73:
easoning have their source in the l
Page 74 and 75:
Wittgenstein on Frazer and Explanat
Page 76 and 77:
genstein 1993, p. 143). In order to
Page 78 and 79:
an adequate syntactic analysis of o
Page 80 and 81:
Wittgenstein meets ÖGS: Wovon man
Page 82 and 83:
Wittgenstein meets ÖGS: Wovon man
Page 84 and 85:
3. Der Elementarsatz wird als Relat
Page 86 and 87:
Literatur Glock, Hans Johann 2006
Page 88 and 89:
Explaining the Brain: Ruthless Redu
Page 90 and 91:
Occam’s Razor in the Theory of Th
Page 92 and 93:
Literature Campbell, Donald T. 1987
Page 94 and 95:
Die Nichtreduzierbarkeit der klassi
Page 96 and 97:
Literatur Die Nichtreduzierbarkeit
Page 98 and 99:
Let T I be the minimal theory of tr
Page 100 and 101:
Does Bradley’s Regress Support No
Page 102 and 103:
(3) Mutatis mutandis, realism has t
Page 104 and 105:
Zeitliche Ontologie und zeitliche R
Page 106 and 107:
Betrachtung ontologischer Fragen, M
Page 108 and 109:
The decisive consequences of this a
Page 110 and 111:
Benacerraf and Bad Company (An Atta
Page 112 and 113:
offer a solution to the bad company
Page 114 and 115:
Literature Benacerraf, Paul 1965
Page 116 and 117:
"PA" by using "PA* ", at least at t
Page 118 and 119:
Hard Naturalism and its Puzzles Ren
Page 120 and 121:
The Mind-Body-Problem and Score-Kee
Page 122 and 123:
mental properties, for instance, or
Page 124 and 125:
kommt es zu einem gravierenden Miss
Page 126 and 127:
Reduction Revisited: The Ontologica
Page 128 and 129:
4. Conclusion Reduction Revisited:
Page 130 and 131:
All in all, we have seen that reduc
Page 132 and 133:
Physicalism Without the A Priori Pa
Page 134 and 135:
Literature Cartwright, Nancy 1999:
Page 136 and 137:
Wittgensteins Projektionsmethode al
Page 138 and 139:
Schlussbemerkungen Wittgensteins Pr
Page 140 and 141:
intentional states requires functio
Page 142 and 143:
Relating Theories. Models and Struc
Page 144 and 145:
Literature Relating Theories. Model
Page 146 and 147:
e invoked in response to the questi
Page 148 and 149:
Do Brains Think? Christopher Humphr
Page 150 and 151:
4. Conclusion So do brains think or
Page 152 and 153:
How Metaphors Alter the World-Pictu
Page 154 and 155:
The Modal Supervenience of the Conc
Page 156 and 157:
Literature van der Auwera, Johan an
Page 158 and 159:
3. The Determination of Form by Syn
Page 160 and 161:
Zwischen Humes Gesetz und „Sollen
Page 162 and 163:
Zwischen Humes Gesetz und „Sollen
Page 164 and 165:
Assessing Humean Supervenience Amir
Page 166 and 167:
determination thesis; it fails as a
Page 168 and 169:
Aus der obigen Definition folgt, da
Page 170 and 171:
Ding-Ontology of Aristotle vs. Sach
Page 172 and 173:
Ding-Ontology of Aristotle vs. Sach
Page 174 and 175:
How do Moral Principles Figure in M
Page 176 and 177:
“Downward Causation”: Emergent,
Page 178 and 179:
“Downward Causation”: Emergent,
Page 180 and 181:
A with distinguished subset Z of te
Page 182 and 183:
A Metaphysically Moderate Version o
Page 184 and 185:
Literature Balashov, Yuri 2002 ''Wh
Page 186 and 187:
“In der Frage liegt ein Fehler”
Page 188 and 189:
Problems with Psychophysical Identi
Page 190 and 191:
identity theory, or as a predecesso
Page 192 and 193:
of the world. It only matters that
Page 194 and 195:
Four Anti-reductionist Dogmas in th
Page 196 and 197:
Four Anti-reductionist Dogmas in th
Page 198 and 199:
notion of time and requires that so
Page 200 and 201:
Some Remarks on Wittgenstein and Ty
Page 202 and 203:
Some Remarks on Wittgenstein and Ty
Page 204 and 205:
concrete particulars can be subject
Page 206 and 207:
phenomenal concept of experiencing
Page 208 and 209:
Metaphorische Bedeutung als virtus
Page 210 and 211:
speaker is then attaching a special
Page 212 and 213:
„Vom Weißdorn und vom Propheten
Page 214 and 215:
„Die Einheit hören“ - Einige
Page 216 and 217:
„Die Einheit hören“ - Einige
Page 218 and 219:
S4) the necessity of arithmetic is
Page 220 and 221:
Getting out from Inside: Why the Cl
Page 222 and 223:
Dispensing with Particulars: Unders
Page 224 and 225:
Literature Dispensing with Particul
Page 226 and 227:
Reichenbach’s Concept of Logical
Page 228 and 229:
Defining Ontological Naturalism Mar
Page 230 and 231:
Literature Jackson, Frank 1986. “
Page 232 and 233:
properties are located. This proces
Page 234 and 235:
‘our conceptual scheme’ “is c
Page 236 and 237:
Properties and Reduction between Me
Page 238 and 239: Does this mean that metaphysics sho
Page 240 and 241: do not pick out pain in a system by
Page 242 and 243: The Writing of Nietzsche and Wittge
Page 244 and 245: his teachings. He coincides with hi
Page 246 and 247: sense of a proposition without firs
Page 248 and 249: Naturalistic Ethics: A Logical Posi
Page 250 and 251: Literature Kant, Immanuel 2006 Crit
Page 252 and 253: What we now require is a bridge the
Page 254 and 255: Species, Variability, and Integrati
Page 256 and 257: could mention the many sorts of iso
Page 258 and 259: to work this way. Classic examples
Page 260 and 261: The Key Problems of KC Matteo Pleba
Page 262 and 263: have embraced the myth of prose: it
Page 264 and 265: 5. Prior’s Problem As Patrick Bla
Page 266 and 267: Reductionism in Axiology: the Case
Page 268 and 269: developing of cancer tissue in huma
Page 270 and 271: (2) One-way Nagelian bridge princip
Page 272 and 273: Rethinking the Modal Argument again
Page 274 and 275: Rethinking the Modal Argument again
Page 276 and 277: that we are to find the features we
Page 278 and 279: Atypical Rational Agency Paul Raymo
Page 280 and 281: Literature Anscombe, G. E. M. 1957
Page 282 and 283: situation bieten sich keine Kriteri
Page 284 and 285: Two Reductions of ‘rule’ Dana R
Page 286 and 287: one that could take place, but does
Page 290 and 291: Wittgenstein’s Attitudes Fabien S
Page 292 and 293: view of logic, in accordance with h
Page 294 and 295: Warum man auf transzendentalphiloso
Page 296 and 297: Making the Mind Higher-Level Elizab
Page 298 and 299: Literature Churchland, P. M. (1995)
Page 300 and 301: Zwischen Humes Gesetz und „Sollen
Page 302 and 303: Mental Causation: A Lesson from Act
Page 304 and 305: Again, this is mistaken. Non-reduct
Page 306 and 307: auf alle Arten von kontingenten Pro
Page 308 and 309: Reduction, Sets, and Properties Ben
Page 310 and 311: Literature Egan, Andy (2004): ‘Se
Page 312 and 313: there is a tension between evaluati
Page 314 and 315: The Elimination of Meaning in Compu
Page 316 and 317: sufficient to explain all of the em
Page 318 and 319: that 'A' and 'A' could never be tok
Page 320 and 321: the necktie sense) can differ in wh
Page 322 and 323: Supervenience and ‘Should’ Arto
Page 324 and 325: word 'norm' can be thought to expre
Page 326 and 327: Rule-following as Coordination: A G
Page 328 and 329: vast majority are bent: gruesome, g
Page 330 and 331: human life, the violent condition o
Page 332 and 333: A Division in Mind. The Misconceive
Page 334 and 335: A Division in Mind. The Misconceive
Page 336 and 337: could then deduce (1c) and conclude
Page 338 and 339:
Neutral Monism. A Miraculous, Incoh
Page 340 and 341:
Neutral Monism. A Miraculous, Incoh
Page 342 and 343:
A somewhat Eliminativist Proposal a
Page 344 and 345:
Impliziert der intentionale Redukti
Page 346 and 347:
Impliziert der intentionale Redukti
Page 348 and 349:
Structure of the Paradoxes, Structu
Page 350 and 351:
Structure of the Paradoxes, Structu
Page 352 and 353:
that he was working on a translatio
Page 354 and 355:
Objects of Perception, Objects of S
Page 356 and 357:
Objects of Perception, Objects of S
Page 358 and 359:
Let us take the example of the hypo
Page 360 and 361:
Reducing Sets to Modalities Rafał
Page 362 and 363:
variables ai that (under an interpr
Page 364 and 365:
Are Lamarckian Explanations Fully R
Page 366 and 367:
A Note on Tractatus 5.521 Nuno Vent
Page 368 and 369:
And he goes on saying, referring to
Page 370 and 371:
The Place of Theory Reduction in th
Page 372 and 373:
Ethik als irreduzibles Supervenienz
Page 374 and 375:
unabhängig von denen ihrer Mitglie
Page 376 and 377:
Das ‘schwierige Problem’ des Be
Page 378 and 379:
The Supervenience Argument, Levels,
Page 380 and 381:
The Supervenience Argument, Levels,
Page 382 and 383:
their relations both to the physica
Page 384 and 385:
On the Characterization of Objects
Page 386 and 387:
On the Characterization of Objects
Page 388 and 389:
The Functional Unity of Special Sci
Page 390 and 391:
size, location, temporal characteri
Page 392 and 393:
Transcendental Philosophy and Mind-
Page 394 and 395:
From Topology to Logic. The Neural
Page 396 and 397:
From Topology to Logic. The Neural
Page 398 and 399:
The Calculus of Inductive Construct
Page 400 and 401:
The Four-Color Theorem, Testimony a
Page 402 and 403:
experience. Of course, a detailed a
Page 404 and 405:
Clearly x = y → x = ext y holds,
Page 406 and 407:
Intentional Fundamentalism Petri Yl
Page 408 and 409:
The second dimension to be consider
Page 410 and 411:
The very existence of the special s
Page 412 and 413:
Heil, J. (1999), “Multiple Realiz
Page 414 and 415:
independent of what is the fact, fa
Page 416 and 417:
415
Page 418:
Publications of the Austrian Ludwig
show all

Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?