Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If reduction can be formally complete under Kemeny-Oppenh... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Even if two theories instantiate a relation of the sort required by Nagel's model, we should not speak of proper reduction if the connection between the domains of the two theories remains too loose to support materialist claims.

    If reduction can be formally complete under Kemeny-Oppenheim without satisfying materialist constraints, then materialist adequacy is not a necessary condition on legitimate reduction.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kemeny-Oppenheim reduction is defined by formal structural relations, not by ontological commitments about matter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mathematical or logical completeness can satisfy explanatory adequacy independently of whether physical substrate constraints are met.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring materialism as necessary for reduction conflates metaphysical doctrine with epistemological standards for theory replacement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If reduction lacks material realizability, it cannot explain how higher-level phenomena causally interact with the physical world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Formal completeness without materialist grounding risks allowing non-physical or vacuous reductions that lack genuine explanatory power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The original Kemeny-Oppenheim framework presupposed physicalism; dropping materialism abandons the framework's core justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Formally complete(used in discussions of what counts as a successful explanation)
    Meeting all the strict logical and mathematical requirements of a system or framework, even if other concerns aren't addressed.
    Kemeny-Oppenheim(named after philosophers who developed this theory of reduction)
    A framework created by two philosophers (Kemeny and Oppenheim) that sets out rules for when a reduction counts as successful, based on logical and mathematical standards.
    Legitimate reduction(used in philosophy of science to discuss what makes a reduction count as real or acceptable)
    A reduction that is considered valid, acceptable, and successful according to the rules and standards being used.
    Materialist adequacy(used when evaluating if a reduction meets the standards of materialism)
    Whether an explanation successfully fits with the materialist belief that everything reduces to the physical.
    Materialist constraints(used in philosophy of mind when debating what must be true for an explanation to be acceptable)
    Requirements that come from materialism—the view that everything in the universe is ultimately made of physical stuff, and can be explained in physical terms.
    necessary condition(Counterfactual analysis of causation; Mackie 1965, 1974)
    A condition C is necessary for event E if E would not have occurred in the absence of C
    reduction (in philosophy)(used in this statement about whether one question can be reduced to another)
    A claim that something complex can be completely explained or replaced by something simpler—the idea that one thing really just boils down to another.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedCausation1 linked

    Related

    Even if two theories instantiate a relation of the sort required by Nagel's mode...Formal completeness without materialist grounding risks allowing non-physical or...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    If reduction lacks material realizability, it cannot explain how higher-level ph...
    Kemeny-Oppenheim reduction is defined by formal structural relations, not by ont...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mathematical or logical completeness can satisfy explanatory adequacy independen...Requiring materialism as necessary for reduction conflates metaphysical doctrine...The original Kemeny-Oppenheim framework presupposed physicalism; dropping materi...