Abstract
AbstractUniversal reductionism—the sort of project pursued by Carnap in the Aufbau, Lewis in his campaign on behalf of Humean supervenience, Jackson in From Metaphysics to Ethics, and Chalmers in Constructing the World—aims to reduce everything to some specified base, more or less austere as it may be. In this paper, I identify two constraints that a promising strategy to argue for universal reductionism needs to satisfy: the exhaustion constraint and the chaining constraint. As a case study, I then consider Chalmers’ Constructing the World, in which a priori implication, or “scrutability”, plays the role of reduction. Chalmers first divides up the total vocabulary of our language into different families, and then argues, for each family separately, that truths involving expressions in that family are scrutable from the putative base. He does not systematically address the question whether “cross-family sentences”—sentences involving expressions from more than one family—are scrutable. I shall argue that this lacuna cannot be filled, since scrutability does not allow for the exhaustion constraint and the chaining constraint to be jointly satisfied. I further suggest that Carnap’s account, in which definability plays the role of reduction, has better prospects of meeting these constraints.
Funder
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference24 articles.
1. Ayer, A. J. (2001). Language, truth and logic. London: Penguin.
2. Bennett, K. (2003). Why the exclusion problem is intractable, and how, just maybe, to tract it. Noûs, 37, 471–497.
3. Bennett, K. (2004). Global supervenience and dependence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68(3), 501–529.
4. Bennett, K. (2008). Exclusion again. In J. Hohwy & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced (pp. 280–305). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Bliss, R., & Trogdon, K. (2016). Metaphysical grounding. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). Stanford: Stanford University.