Hey all
We will be reading Jaegwon Kim’s paper, “Reduction and Reductive Explanation: Is One Possible Without the Other?” at this week’s meeting. The meeting is Monday, 1/30 in Conference Room 019 in the basement of Reynolds, from 7-8:30 PM. Here is a link at which you can access it: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199585878.001.0001/acprof-9780199585878-chapter-11
Here is an abstract of the paper:
“Reduction and Reductive Explanation: Is One Possible Without the Other?” discusses the assumption often made by philosophers to the effect that reductive explanation must be distinguished from reduction, and that even where reduction fails, reductive explanation is often possible and in fact successful. The paper explores the relationship between reduction and reductive explanation with regard to three models of reduction, bridge‐law reduction, identity reduction which strengthens bridge laws into identities, and functional reduction based on functional analyses of properties to be reduced. It is argued that bridge‐law reduction delivers neither genuine reduction nor reductive explanation, that identity reduction gives us reduction but not reductive explanation, and that functional reduction yields reductive explanation and, arguably, reduction as well.
While the paper is fairly technical, don’t feel that you need a deep background in metaphysics to participate– we’ll be spending most of our time working through the positions and Kim’s arguments, and I’ll be happy to field questions at any level (though the deeper they are, the less likely I’ll be able to give a fully satisfactory answer).
Hope to see you there!
-Phil