Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:58:21.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Eliminativism and Methodological Individualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Harold Kincaid
Harold Kincaid*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Alabama at Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tuomela (this issue, pp. 96–103) raises several objections to the analysis and critique of methodological individualism in my (1986). In what follows I reply to those criticisms, arguing, among other things, that: (1) the alleged reductions provided by Tuomela and others fail, because they either presuppose rather than eliminate social predicates or do not avoid the problem of multiple realizations; (2) supervenience does not guarantee that the social sciences are reducible, because merely describing supervenieence bases leaves numerous questions unanswered, and (3) the eliminativism that Tuomela favors verges on being self-refuting and is highly implausible short of a detailed empirical critique of the social sciences, something Tuomela does not provide and something there is little reason to think can be provided.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 141 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beetham, D. (1987), Bureaucracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1985), Making Sense of Marx. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. and Thompson, F. (1975), “Physicalism: Ontology, Determination and Reduction”, Journal of Philosophy 72: 551–564.10.2307/2025067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, H. (1986), “Reduction, Explanation and Individualism”, Philosophy of Science 53: 492–513.10.1086/289337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, H. (1987), “Supervenience Doesn't Entail Reducibility,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 25: 343–356.10.1111/j.2041-6962.1987.tb01627.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, H. (1988), “Supervenience and Explanation”, Synthese 77: 251–281.10.1007/BF00869436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, H. (1988), “Confirmation, Complexity and the Social Sciences”, PSA 1988, Vol. 2, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. (n.d.), “Defending Laws in the Social Sciences”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Levinson, D. and Malone, M. (1980), Explaining Human Culture. HRAF Press.Google Scholar
McCauley, R. (1987), “Intertheoretic Relations and the Future of Psychology”, Philosophy of Science 53: 335–374.Google Scholar
Opp, K.-D. (1979), Individualistische Sozialwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
Paige, J. (1975), Agrarian Revolution. London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Pryor, F. (1977), The Origins of the Economy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1984), Minds, Brains and Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. and Hudson, M. (1972), World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. and Hudson, M. and Jodice, D. (1983), World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1984), A Theory of Social Action. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-6317-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1990), “Discussion: Methodological Individualism and Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 57: 96–103.10.1086/289535CrossRefGoogle Scholar