Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Огляд сучасної філософії науки.Олександр Габович & Володимир Кузнєцов - 2022 - Filosofska Dumka 2022 (1):115-133.
    Поняття «філософія науки» незаперечно увійшло до сучасного філософського дискурсу. У філо- софському та науковому середовищах є різні тлумачення філософії науки. Власне науку тради- ційно вважають суспільною інституцією, створеною з метою здобуття та застосування знань про природні та штучні реалії. Водночас введення поняття «філософія науки» було б три віальним, якби його обсяг зводився до перетину обсягів понять «наука» і «філософія». Пе ре- хід від тлумачення науки загалом до її розуміння як сукупності конкретних наук з особ ливими предметними галузями викликає виокремлення із (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Puzzling Resilience of Multiple Realization.Thomas W. Polger & Lawrence A. Shapiro - 2023 - Minds and Machines 33 (2):321-345.
    According to the multiple realization argument, mental states or processes can be realized in diverse and heterogeneous physical systems; and that fact implies that mental state or process kinds cannot be identified with particular kinds of physical states or processes. More specifically, mental processes cannot be identified with brain processes. Moreover, the argument provides a general model for the autonomy of the special sciences. The multiple realization argument is widely influential, but over the last thirty years it has also faced (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Reduction and anti-reduction: Rights and wrongs.Todd Jones - 2004 - Metaphilosophy 25 (5):614-647.
    Scholars are divided as to whether reduction should be a central strategy for understanding the world. While reductive analysis is the standard mode of explanation in many areas of science and everyday life, many consider reductionism a sign of “intellectual naivete and backwardness.” In this paper I make three points about the proper status of anti-reductionism: First, reduction, is, in fact, a centrally important epistemic strategy. Second, reduction to physics is always possible for all causal properties. Third, there are, nevertheless, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Reductionism and Antireductionism: Rights and Wrongs.Todd Jones - 2004 - Metaphilosophy 35 (5):614-647.
    Scholars are divided as to whether reduction should be a central strategy for understanding the world. While reductive analysis is the standard mode of explanation in many areas of science and everyday life, many scholars consider reductionism a sign of “intellectual naïveté and backwardness.” This article makes three points about the proper status of antireductionism: First, reduction is, in fact, a centrally important epistemic strategy. Second, reduction to physics is always possible for all causal properties. Third, there are, nevertheless, reasons (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Norms and Customs: Causally Important or Causally Impotent?Todd Jones - 2010 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (3):399-432.
    In this article, I argue that norms and customs, despite frequently being described as being causes of behavior in the social sciences and ordinary conversation, cannot really cause behavior. Terms like "norms" and the like seem to refer to philosophically disreputable disjunctive properties. More problematically, even if they do not, or even if there can be disjunctive properties after all, I argue that norms and customs still cannot cause behavior. The social sciences would be better off without referring to properties (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Explanations of social phenomena: Competing and complementary accounts.Todd Jones - 2008 - Metaphilosophy 39 (4-5):621-650.
    Abstract: Situations that social scientists and others explain by using concepts like "custom" and "norm" often tend to be situations in which many other kinds of explanations (for example, biological, psychological, economic, historical) seem plausible as well. Do these other explanations compete with the custom or norm explanations, or do they complement them? We need to consider this question carefully and not just assume that various accounts are all permissible at different levels of analysis. In this article I describe two (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Do customs compete with conditioning? Turf battles and division of labor in social explanation.Todd Jones - 2012 - Synthese 184 (3):407-430.
    We often face a bewildering array of different explanations for the same social facts (e.g. biological, psychological, economic, and historical accounts). But we have few guidelines for whether and when we should think of different accounts as competing or compatible. In this paper, I offer some guidelines for understanding when custom or norm accounts do and don’t compete with other types of accounts. I describe two families of non-competing accounts: (1) explanations of different (but similarly described) facts, and (2) accounts (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•