Search

One way to secure the autonomy of special sciences like psychology is to block reductive strategies by assuming that higher-order properties in psychology are multiply realizable. Multiple realizability would then secure both metaphysical irreducibility and dependency by exploring the variety of ways in which higher-order phenomena can be realized in different systems. Originally, a promising way to understand this variability was in terms of the possible realization role played by property disjunction. However, the non-projectability of disjunctive predicates into explanatory generalizations undermines the multiple realizability strategy mainly because a condition for these generalizations to have scientific weight is that they be based on the existence of natural kinds. Traditionally, disjunctive properties have no reference to kinds. In this paper I explore the character of disjunctive properties as cases of homeostatic property clusters sufficient to be classified as genuine natural kinds, and the consequences for the question of the autonomy of the special sciences.

The exclusion problem is meant to show that non-reductive physicalism leads to epiphenomenalism: if mental properties are not identical with physical properties, then they are not causally efficacious. Defenders of a difference-making account of causation suggest that the exclusion problem can be solved because mental properties can be difference-making causes of physical effects. Here, we focus on what we dub an incompatibilist implementation of this general strategy and argue against it from a non-reductive physicalist perspective. Specifically, we argue that incompatibilism undermines either the non-reductionist or the physicalist aspirations of non-reductive physicalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meinertsen has recently put forward three arguments against disjunctive properties: the arguments from truthmaking, commonality, and causation. In this paper, I argue that all three arguments fail. The argument from truthmaking rests on the problematic notion of different types of truthmakers and is therefore itself problematic. The argument from commonality may hold but only at the cost of losing much of the philosophical significance of its conclusion. The argument from causation essentially collapses into the argument from truthmaking and is therefore problematic for the same reason as the latter is. I conclude that Meinertsen has not made a case against disjunctive properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper defends the case against (sparse) disjunctive properties by means of four Armstrongian arguments. The first of these is a logical atomist argument from truthmaking, which is, broadly speaking, 'Armstrongian' (Armstrong 1997). This argument is strong – although it stands or falls with the relevant notion of truthmaking, as it were. However, three arguments, which are prima facie independent of truthmaking, can be found explicitly early in Armstrong's middle period. Two of these early arguments face a serious objection put forward forcefully by Louise Antony (2003) and Alan Penczek (1997), respectively. I consider these objections and argue that they fail. Thus, even if the argument from truthmaking is indecisive, disjunctive properties should be rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Defining the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties has turned out to be one of the most difficult and controversial tasks in contemporary metaphysics. It is generally assumed that a definition of intrinsicness should aim to avoid as many counterexamples as possible and reduce the notion to less controversial philosophical notions. In this paper, the author argues for a new methodological approach to defining intrinsicness. Rather than trying to cover as many intuitive examples as possible, a definition of intrinsicness should reflect the crucial features of our intuitive understanding of the notion, and one of these features is that the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has to be characterized in a non-reductive way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]