Abstraction and Explanatory Relevance; or, Why Do the Special Sciences Exist?

Philosophy of Science 78 (5):1143-1155 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Non-reductive physicalists have long held that the special sciences offer explanations of some phenomena that are objectively superior to physical explanations. This explanatory “autonomy” has largely been based on the multiple realizability argument. Recently, in the face of the local reduction and disjunctive property responses to multiple realizability, some defenders of non-reductive physicalism have suggested that autonomy can be grounded merely in human cognitive limitations. In this paper, I argue that this is mistaken. By distinguishing between two kinds of abstraction I show that the greater explanatory relevance of some special science predicates (to certain explananda) is both non-anthropocentric and not solely based on considerations of multiple realizability. This shows that the explanatory autonomy of the special sciences is safe from the local reduction and disjunctive property strategies, even if they are successful responses to the multiple realizability argument.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,102

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Explanatory Depth.Brad Weslake - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (2):273-294.
Explanation and invariance in the special sciences.James Woodward - 2000 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2):197-254.
Special-Science Autonomy and the Division of Labor.Michael Strevens - 2016 - In Mark Couch & Jessica Pfeifer (eds.), The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.
Norms, invariance, and explanatory relevance.David Henderson - 2005 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (3):324-338.
A Theory of Non-universal Laws.Alexander Reutlinger - 2011 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (2):97 - 117.
Statistical relevance and explanatory classification.John L. King - 1976 - Philosophical Studies 30 (5):313 - 321.
An “empirical science” of literature.Edmund Nierlich - 2005 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):351 - 376.
Pain, qualia, and the explanatory gap.Donald F. Gustafson - 1998 - Philosophical Psychology 11 (3):371-387.
Explanatory exclusion history and social science.Mark Day - 2004 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (1):20-37.


Added to PP

110 (#152,574)

6 months
12 (#145,875)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew Haug
William & Mary