Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:41:34.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Realism and the Relationship between the Special Sciences and Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James Ladyman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The primacy of physics generates a philosophical problem that the naturalist must solve in order to be entitled to an egalitarian acceptance of the ontological commitments he or she inherits from the special sciences and fundamental physics. The problem is the generalized causal exclusion argument. If there is no genuine causation in the domains of the special sciences but only in fundamental physics then there are grounds for doubting the existence of macroscopic objects and properties, or at least the concreteness of them. The aim of this paper is to show that the causal exclusion problem derives its force from a false dichotomy between Humeanism about causation and a notion of productive or generative causation based on a defunct model of the physical world.

Type
Structural Realism and the Special Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 744 - 755
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Lynne Rudder (1993), “Metaphysics and Mental Causation”, in Heil, John and Mele, Alfred (eds.), Mental Causation. Oxford: Clarendon, 75–95.Google Scholar
Block, Ned (2003), “Do Causal Powers Drain Away?”, Do Causal Powers Drain Away? 67:133–150.Google Scholar
Bontly, Thomas (2002), “The Supervenience Argument Generalizes”, The Supervenience Argument Generalizes 109:75–96.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler (1993), “Mind-Body Causation and Explanatory Practice”, in Heil, John and Mele, Alfred (eds.), Mental Causation. Oxford: Clarendon, 97–120.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1989), Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy, and Chalmers, David (1998), “The Extended Mind”, The Extended Mind 58:7–19.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1991), “Making Mind Matter More”, in A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 137–159.Google Scholar
Glymour, Clark (1999), “A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste—Critical Notice: Jaegwon Kim, Mind in a Physical World”, A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste—Critical Notice: Jaegwon Kim, Mind in a Physical World 66:455–471.Google Scholar
Horgan, Terence (1997), “Kim on Mental Causation and Causal Exclusion”, Kim on Mental Causation and Causal Exclusion 11:165–184.Google Scholar
Hurley, Susan (1998), Consciousness in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank, and Pettit, Philip (1990), “Program Explanation: A General Perspective”, Program Explanation: A General Perspective 50:107–117.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1984), “Epiphenomenal and Supervenient Causation”, Epiphenomenal and Supervenient Causation 9:257–236.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1998), Mind in a Physical World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1999), “Making Sense of Emergence”, Making Sense of Emergence 95:3–36.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (2005), Physicalism or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keijzer, Fred, and Schouten, Maurice (2007), “Embedded Cognition and Mental Causation: Setting Empirical Bounds on Metaphysics”, Embedded Cognition and Mental Causation: Setting Empirical Bounds on Metaphysics 158 (11): 107–125..Google Scholar
Kincaid, Harold (2004), “There Are Laws in the Social Sciences”, in Hitchcock, Chris (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 168–185.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Ross, Don (2007), Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark (1980), Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merricks, Trenton (2001), Objects and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John (2007), “Causation as Folk Science”, in Price, Huw and Corry, Richard (eds.), Causation, Physics and the Constitution of Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–44.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (1993), “A Definition of Physicalism”, A Definition of Physicalism 53:213–223.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael (1990), “Explanation”, in Knowles, Dudley (ed.), Explanation and Its Limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 135–154.Google Scholar
Ross, Don, and Spurrett, David (2007), “Notions of Cause: Russell's Thesis Revisited”, Notions of Cause: Russell's Thesis Revisited 58:45–76.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand ([1913] 1917), “On the Notion of Cause”, in Russell, Bertrand, Mysticism and Logic. London: Unwin, 173–199.Google Scholar