The Seventh Circuit example conflates ontological reduction with conceptual or social irreducibility; legal powers may still be realized by physical configurations of brains and institutions.

?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 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Conceptual irreducibility(as used in philosophy of language and metaphysics): When a concept or idea can't be fully explained or translated into simpler terms, even if the underlying reality is made of basic physical stuff.
Legal powers(as used in philosophy of law): The ability of laws, institutions, or legal concepts to create effects and control behavior—like how a contract has the 'power' to bind people to obligations.
Social irreducibility(as used in social philosophy and metaphysics): When something's meaning or importance depends on how society treats it and thinks about it, and can't be understood by just looking at physical facts alone.
The Seventh Circuit(as used in legal philosophy and law): A U.S. federal court of appeals that covers several Midwestern states; the statement refers to a specific legal case or ruling from this court.
ontological reduction(Contrasted with epistemic reduction by the nature of the relata involved): A form of reduction whose primary relata are non-representational entities
realized by(in philosophy of mind): Made possible or created by something else; in this case, a mental experience is 'realized by' the physical brain activity that makes it happen.

2 topics