posted on 2023-05-18, 03:05authored bySuzanne Bliss, Fernandez, J
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.
History
Publication title
The Southern Journal of Philosophy
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pagination
321-346
ISSN
0038-4283
Department/School
School of Humanities
Publisher
Southern J Philosophy Univ Memphis
Place of publication
United States
Rights statement
Copyright 2011 The University of Memphis
Repository Status
Restricted
Socio-economic Objectives
Expanding knowledge in philosophy and religious studies