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
    Partial reductions share important features with mechanis... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Partial reductions share important features with mechanistic explanations

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Partial reductions are local
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Partial reductions postulate a causal mechanism responsible for the target phenomenon
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Partial reductions refer to constituents in the explanation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mechanistic explanations require the identification of activities and entities organized to produce a phenomenon, not merely causal postulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Partial reductions can appeal to statistical regularities or functional relations without specifying any underlying mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sharing some surface features does not establish the structural identity of explanatory schema that the claim implies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nagel-style reductions operate via bridge laws connecting predicates across theories, while mechanistic explanations proceed by decomposition of organized systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kitcher's unificationist account shows that reductive explanations gain their epistemic force by subsuming phenomena under general argument patterns, not by identifying causal parts.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Kitcher's unificationist account shows that reductive explanations gain their ep...Mechanistic explanations require the identification of activities and entities o...Nagel-style reductions operate via bridge laws connecting predicates across theo...Partial reductions are local
    +5 moreShow less
    Partial reductions can appeal to statistical regularities or functional relation...Partial reductions may span different levels of organizationPartial reductions postulate a causal mechanism responsible for the target pheno...Partial reductions refer to constituents in the explanationSharing some surface features does not establish the structural identity of expl...

    Similar

    Partial reductions refer to constituents in the explanation81%Some explanations exceed mere brute-fact postulates without achieving ...78%The process of reduction often leads to a corrected version of the red...77%Partial reductions postulate a causal mechanism responsible for the ta...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: scientific-reduction
    View source passageHide passage
    In response to those critiques, some, like Schaffner and Dizadji-Bahmani et al. (2010) and Butterfield (2011a&b) have developed variants of the Nagel model that retain its spirit but avoid many of the problems faced by the original. Prominent suggestions concern refinements of the logical framework in which Nagelian reduction is described (Dizadji-Bahmani, Frigg, and Hartmann (2010) and Butterfield (2011a)) as well as a relaxation of the condition that reductions must be complete. The idea i
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit