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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Schaffner's criticism of Enç for assuming that reduction is causation is misplaced

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Enç's description of reductive dependence does not actually commit him to the claim that reduction is causation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schaffner interprets Enç as literally equating reduction with causation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.That interpretation overlooks the non-standard sense in which Enç uses 'causation'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Enç explicitly draws on Aristotelian formal causation, where 'cause' denotes constitutive dependence rather than efficient causal production.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schaffner's criticism presupposes a Humean regularity model of causation, which Enç's framework deliberately rejects in favor of metaphysical grounding relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating these two causal frameworks renders Schaffner's objection a mere terminological dispute rather than a substantive philosophical challenge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kim's work on supervenience establishes that reductive dependence relations can be asymmetric and necessitating without being straightforwardly causal in the efficient sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Enç's account of reductive dependence shares structural features with Kim's supervenience, suggesting his 'causation' talk is shorthand for ontological priority, not causal production.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Schaffner's failure to engage with the supervenience literature available at the time of his critique leaves his interpretation of Enç textually and philosophically unsupported.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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