DOCSLIB.ORG

Raphael Van Riel the Concept of Reduction the Concept of Reduction PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES SERIES

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Raphael Van Riel the Concept of Reduction the Concept of Reduction PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES SERIES Philosophical Studies Series 121 Raphael van Riel The Concept of Reduction The Concept of Reduction PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES SERIES VOLUME 121 Founded by Wilfrid S. Sellars and Keith Lehrer Editor Stephen Hetherington, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Senior Advisory Editor Keith Lehrer, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A. Associate Editor Stewart Cohen, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A. Board of Consulting Editors Lynne Rudder Baker, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, U.S.A. Radu Bogdan, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A. Marian David, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, U.S.A. John M. Fischer, University of California, Riverside, CA, U.S.A. Allan Gibbard, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A. Denise Meyerson, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia François Recanati, Institut Jean-Nicod, EHESS, Paris, France Mark Sainsbury, University of Texas, Austin, TX, U.S.A. Stuart Silvers, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, U.S.A. Barry Smith, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, U.S.A. Nicholas D. Smith, Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR, U.S.A. Linda Zagzebski, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, U.S.A. For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/6459 Raphael van Riel The Concept of Reduction 123 Raphael van Riel Institut für Philosophie Universität Duisburg-Essen Essen, Germany ISBN 978-3-319-04161-2 ISBN 978-3-319-04162-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04162-9 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2014932164 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) For Katharina Preface This book is a revised version of my doctoral thesis submitted at the Ruhr-University of Bochum in July 2010. The thesis was written under the supervision of Albert Newen and Stephan Hartmann. The core arguments were discussed with my colleagues in Bochum and at the Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS), where I spent a couple of months in 2009 as a visiting fellow. Several papers emerged from this thesis, brief summaries of which are included in the present book. I started working on the manuscript again in 2012, while spending two wonderful months in Barcelona as a visiting fellow in the LOGOS group. First of all, I wish to thank my supervisors Albert Newen and Stephan Hartmann for their helpful comments on the manuscript and the long discussions we had on this topic. I am grateful for their guidance. I would like to thank Markus Werning and Ulrich Pardey, who were on the committee and provided helpful feedback. A somewhat independent ‘thank you’ goes, again, to Albert Newen for his strategic and motivational support as my boss for more than 5 years at the University of Bochum. The time was great. I also wish to thank my former colleagues for helpful discussions, for reading sections of the manuscript, and for providing distraction when needed: Leon de Bruin, Eva Maria Jung, Lena Kästner, Ulrike Pompe, Tobias Schlicht, Tomoo Ueda, Anna Welpinghus, and, especially, Markus Eronen, Christoph Michel, Tobias Starzak, and Gottfried Vosgerau. I had extremely helpful discussions with Alexander Reutlinger, Christian Sachse, Patrice Soom, and Jan Sprenger. I received valuable comments from a group of philosophers at Brown University, and I would like to thank Douglas Kutach for his feedback on a paper that summarized an early version of the core argument of Chap. 3. I would also like to thank Gerhard Schurz for inviting me to his colloquium, where I received extremely valuable comments. I am grateful to Dan López de Sa and Moritz Schulz for inviting me to the PERSP-Metaphysics seminar in Barcelona, where a paper of mine was intensively discussed – a paper significant portions of which later entered Chaps. 3 and 9. Working with Robert Van Gulick on the entry ‘Scientific Reduction’ for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy helped me to get clearer about numerous subtleties of the reduction debate – I wish to thank him for that. I received valuable input during workshops and in colloquia in Lausanne, Milan, vii viii Preface Krakow, Helsinki, Tilburg, and Geneva. I am especially grateful for the intense, often nightlong discussions I had with Heiner Koch, Nick Haverkamp and Miguel Hoeltje, who also read and commented on significant portions of this book. I also wish to thank Daniel James for reading parts of the book and for intense discussions. An anonymous referee provided extremely helpful comments not only on particular sections, but also on the book’s overall structure – in the light of these comments I restructured the entire book; I truly hope the result does justice to the referee’s valuable suggestions, at least to some extent. I would also like to thank the foundations that enabled me to conduct research, stay abroad and travel to conferences: the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes and the Mercator Stiftung. The final version of this manuscript was produced with the support of a generous Dilthey-Fellowship of the Volkswagen Foundation. Thanks also to Ties Nijssen and Christi Lue from Springer for their support. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my former teachers at the University of Hamburg, especially Harald Wohlrapp and Wolfgang Künne, and to my family, who encouraged me to pursue a philosophical career, and who enabled me to carry out this project – my parents, Peter and Ulrike, with great affection, my brother and sister, and Hartmut Meißner. My deepest thanks go to my wife, Katharina, for being patient, for always putting things into perspective, and for her encouragement. And thanks to my children – for everything. Essen, Germany Raphael van Riel Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................. 1 1.1 A Puzzle About Reduction ............................................ 3 1.2 A Sketch of a Solution................................................. 3 1.3 A Note on Methodology............................................... 4 1.4 Reduction and Reductionism.......................................... 5 1.5 The Book’s Structure .................................................. 6 Bibliography ................................................................. 8 Part I The Concept of Reduction – An Explication 2 How to Approach Reduction: Explication and Meta-science .......... 11 2.1 Reduction, Elimination, and Monism – A Taxonomy ............... 11 2.1.1 Reductionism and Monism ................................... 12 2.1.2 Two Forms of Eliminativism.................................. 12 2.1.3 Four Types of Monism – The Taxonomy..................... 13 2.1.4 Reduction and Metaphysical Neutrality ...................... 16 2.1.5 Reductionism and Realism.................................... 17 2.1.6 Two Philosophical Challenges: Reduction and Replacement .............................................. 18 2.1.7 Theory Reduction and Ontological Reduction ............... 19 2.2 Ways of Defining Reduction .......................................... 20 2.2.1 Definitions as Stipulations .................................... 21 2.2.2 Empirically Inspired Definitions.............................. 22 2.2.3 Definitions as Explications.................................... 24 2.3 The Concept of Reduction as the Subject of Explication?........... 29 2.4 Terminology ........................................................... 31 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................. 35 Bibliography ................................................................. 35 3 The Puzzle of Reduction ................................................... 39 3.1 The Puzzle ............................................................. 40 3.2 Hyper-intensionality ..................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Replies to Commentators on the Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections Harald R
    Document generated on 09/28/2021 7:52 a.m. Informal Logic Replies to Commentators on The Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections Harald R. Wohlrapp Volume 37, Number 4, 2017 Article abstract The paper provides a series of responses to the papers published in Vol. 37, No. URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1042917ar 3, of this journal that explored the ideas in Harald Wohlrapp’s The Concept of DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i4.5004 Argument (2014), where arguing is understood as the theoretical or theory-forming activity that can be found in research of all kinds. Thus, the See table of contents approach taken focuses on the validity of theses. This approach is clarified further as the author considers points raised by his commentators and provides answers and, where necessary, corrections. Publisher(s) Informal Logic ISSN 0824-2577 (print) 2293-734X (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Wohlrapp, H. (2017). Replies to Commentators on The Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections. Informal Logic, 37(4), 247–321. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i4.5004 Copyright (c), 2017 Harald R. Wohlrapp This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.
    [Show full text]
  • Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections Harald R
    Document generated on 09/27/2021 3:16 p.m. Informal Logic Replies to Commentators on The Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections Harald R. Wohlrapp Volume 37, Number 4, 2017 Article abstract The paper provides a series of responses to the papers published in Vol. 37, No. URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1042917ar 3, of this journal that explored the ideas in Harald Wohlrapp’s The Concept of DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i4.5004 Argument (2014), where arguing is understood as the theoretical or theory-forming activity that can be found in research of all kinds. Thus, the See table of contents approach taken focuses on the validity of theses. This approach is clarified further as the author considers points raised by his commentators and provides answers and, where necessary, corrections. Publisher(s) Informal Logic ISSN 0824-2577 (print) 2293-734X (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Wohlrapp, H. (2017). Replies to Commentators on The Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections. Informal Logic, 37(4), 247–321. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i4.5004 Copyright (c), 2017 Harald R. Wohlrapp This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation
    PROBLEMS IN ARGUMENT ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION Windsor Studies in Argumentation Volume 6 TRUDY GOVIER Windsor Studies in Argumentation Windsor Ontario Canada Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation by Trudy Govier & Windsor Studies in Argumentation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Copyright Trudy Govier and Windsor Studies in Argumentation ISBN 978-0-920233-83-2 CONTENTS WSIA Editors v WSIA Editors' Introduction vii Preface viii 1. Rigor and Reality 1 2. Is a Theory of Argument Possible 20 3. The Great Divide 56 4. Two Unreceived Views about Reasoning and 84 Argument 5. The Problem of Missing Premises 123 6. A Dialogic Exercise 161 7. A New Approach to Charity 203 8. Reasons Why Arguments and Explanations are 242 Different 9. Four Reasons There are No Fallacies? 271 10. Formalism and Informalism in Theories of 311 Reasoning and Argument 11. Critical Thinking in the Armchair, the Classroom, 349 and the Lab 12. Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking Tests 377 13. The Social Epistemology of Argument 413 WSIA EDITORS Editors in Chief Leo Groarke (Trent University) Christopher Tindale (University of Windsor) Board of Editors Mark Battersby (Capilano University) Camille Cameron (Dalhousie University) Emmanuelle Danblon (Université libre de Bruxelles) Ian Dove (University of Nevada Las Vegas) Bart Garssen (University of Amsterdam) Michael Gilbert (York University) David Godden (Michigan State University) Jean Goodwin (North Carolina State University) Hans V. Hansen (University of Windsor) Gabrijela Kišiček (University of Zagreb) Marcin Koszowy (University of Białystok) Marcin Lewiński (New University of Lisbon) Catherine H. Palczewski (University of Northern Iowa) Chris Reed (University of Dundee) Andrea Rocci (University of Lugano) Paul van den Hoven (Tilburg University) Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Diego Portales University) Igor Ž.
    [Show full text]
  • Cogency V4n1.Indd
    COGENCY Vol. 4, N0. 1 (91-119), Winter 2012 ISSN 0718-8285 Arguments for Rhetorical Arguments: A Response to Aikin Argumentos para los argumentos retóricos: Una respuesta a Aikin Katharina von Radziewsky Department of Philosophy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, [email protected] Christopher W. Tindale Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada [email protected] Received: 8-05-2012 Accepted: 3-08-2012 Abstract: In two well-argued papers, Scott Aikin recently challenged the rhetorical theory of argument (RTA) by claiming that it is self-refuting. This paper deals with the arguments presented by showing that these objections can be rejected by taking into account normative and cognitive specification within RTA. After having interpreted Aikin’s arguments, we show that one cause for his belief that RTA is self-refuting is the belief that an argument should guarantee its conclusion’s truth as far as possible. However, neither RTA nor many other theories of argumentation see the guarantee of truth as a condition for being a good argument. We will identify contextual doubt as the main problem for RTA: because RTA openly states that arguments are devised for eliciting assent, audiences might fear deception by the arguer. In order to show that there is no reason for greater contextual doubt about arguments that are presented under RTA than under any other theory of argument, the idea of ‘reasonable adher- ence’ as the real goal of rhetorical argumentation is introduced. For achieving reason- able adherence, an arguer has to fulfill certain normative and cognitive standards that justify trusting the arguments presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Replies to Commentators on the Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections
    Replies to Commentators on The Concept of Argument: Clarifying Themes, Answering Questions, Settling Objections HARALD R. WOHLRAPP Universität Hamburg Philosophisches Seminar Von-Melle-Park 6 20146 Hamburg Germany [email protected] Abstract: The paper provides a Résumé: Cet article fournit une series of responses to the papers série de réponses aux articles publiés published in Vol. 37, No. 3, of this dans le vol. 37, no. 3 dans lequel les journal that explored the ideas in auteurs explorent les idées contenues Harald Wohlrapp’s The Concept of dans The Concept of Argument de Argument (2014), where arguing is Harald Wohlrapp (2014) où l'argu- understood as the theoretical or mentation est comprise comme l'ac- theory-forming activity that can be tivité théorique ou l’activité qui found in research of all kinds. Thus, forme une théorie qu’on peut trouver the approach taken focuses on the dans toutes sortes de recherches. validity of theses. This approach is Ainsi, l'approche adoptée met l'ac- clarified further as the author con- cent sur la validité des thèses. siders points raised by his commen- L’auteur clarifie davantage cette tators and provides answers and, approche en répondant aux questions where necessary, corrections. soulevée par ses commentateurs et en faisant les corrections qui sont nécessaires. Keywords: justification, objections, objectivity, rhetorical argument, thetical validity, transsubjectivity © Harald R.Wohlrapp. Informal Logic, Vol. 37, No. 4 (2017), pp. 247-321. 248 Harald Wohlrapp Introduction When I began to study argumentation, I was fascinated by the enigmatic relations between different paradigms as they appear, e.g., in the history of science and in the confrontation of cul- tures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rules of Material Inference Theory of Deep Disagreements
    THE RULES OF MATERIAL INFERENCE THEORY OF DEEP DISAGREEMENTS JASON SCHULTCHEN Bachelor of Arts, University of Lethbridge, 2016 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in PHILOSOPHY Department of Philosophy University of Lethbridge LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA, CANADA © Jason Schultchen, 2020 THE RULES OF MATERIAL INFERENCE THEORY OF DEEP DISAGREEMENTS JASON SCHULTCHEN Date of Defence: April 18, 2020 Dr. B. Brown Professor Ph.D. Thesis Supervisor Dr. K. Peacock Professor Ph.D. Thesis Examination Committee Member Dr. K. Stevens Assistant Professor Ph.D. Thesis Examination Committee Member Dr. S. Aikin Assistant Professor Ph.D. External Examiner Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee Dr. J. Linville Associate Professor Ph.D. Chair, Thesis Examination Committee Abstract Robert Fogelin’s problem of deep disagreements is the existence of certain disagreements in which arriving at an agreement by way of argumentation can appear impossible, even if the disagreeing parties are mutually committed to achieving a resolution through earnest argumentation. The essential feature of a deep disagreement is a clash of “underlying principles” which leads the interlocutors to an impasse with respect to deciding upon a means of resolving their disagreement. How we answer the question of whether there is room for effective argumentation in deep disagreements turns upon our understanding of the aforementioned underlying principles. I offer one possible theory of deep disagreements wherein the underlying principles at issue are construed as Wilfrid Sellars’s rules of material inference. My claim is that this Sellarsian take on deep disagreements effectively captures Fogelin’s problem while leaving room for optimism about the various roles that argumentation might play in a deep disagreement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation - a Map
    The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation - A Map Christoph Lumer University of Siena, Italy [email protected] [Published in: Informal Logic 25 (2005). Pp. 189-212. – This is the introduction to two special issues (Informal Logic 25,3 and 26,1) of Informal Logic about "The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation", edited by Christoph Lumer.] Abstract: This contribution gives an overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation. It explains what an 'epistemological approach to argumentation' is, and justifies this approach as being better than a rhetorical or a consensualist approach. It systemizes the main directions and theories within the epistemological approach according to their criteria for good argumentation. It presents contributions by epistemological argumentation theorists to major topics of argumentation theory. Finally, it introduces the articles of the two special issues of "Informal Logic" about the epistemological approach to argumentation. Keywords: epistemological approach, good arguments, function of argumentation, justified belief, acceptability, epistemic accessibility, gnostic criteria, plausibilist criteria, relativism, fallacies, begging the question, literature review This introduction explains what an 'epistemological approach to argumentation' is, comparing it to other approaches (section 1), systemizes the main directions and theories within the epistemological approach according to their criteria for good argumentation (section 2), and presents contributions by epistemological argumentation theorists to major topics of argumentation theory (section 3). Finally, the articles of this and the following special issue of "Informal Logic" are incorporated into the map plotted so far (section 4). 1. What is the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation and Why Is It Better Than Its Rivals? Three full-fledged approaches can be distinguished in the current theory of argumentation on the basis of what they (explicitly or implicitly) assume to be the main purpose or standard function of argumentation.1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic A-Z from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Chapter 1
    Logic A-Z From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Chapter 1 Antepredicament Antepredicaments, in logic, are certain previous matters requisite to a more easy and clear apprehension of the doctrine of predicaments or categories. Such are definitions of common terms, as equivocals, univocals, etc., with divisions of things, their differences, etc. They are thus called because Aristotle treated them before the predicaments, hoping that the thread of discourse might not afterwards be interrupted. 1.1 References • This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). "*article name needed". Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (first ed.). James and John Knapton, et al. 2 Chapter 2 Apophasis Not to be confused with Apophysis (disambiguation), Apoptosis, or Apophis (disambiguation). Apophasis is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up.*[1] Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony. Also called paralipsis (παράλειψις) – also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis –, or occupatio,*[2]*[3]*[4]*[5] and known also as prae- teritio, preterition, antiphrasis (ἀντίφρασις), or parasiopesis (παρασιώπησις), apophasis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack, which makes it a frequently used tactic in political speeches to make an attack on one's opponent. Using apophasis in this way is often considered to be bad form. The device is typically used to distance
    [Show full text]