On Mar 9, 4:47 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/2011 4:50 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> > Peter, your comments appear to illustrate a basic confusion between
> > ontological and epistemological claims that makes me think that you
> > haven't taken on board the fundamental distinction entailed in Bruno's
> > original statement:
>
> > "Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological
> > *elimination*, but it does entail ontological*elimination*."
>
> This strikes me a mere semantic argumentation.  Houses are made of
> bricks.  Bricks are made of atoms.  Atoms are made of strings. This is
> reduction; ontological reduction.  X is reduce to Y and relations among
> Y.  Elimination is not mentioned anywhere.  There is no justification
> for eliminating anything; either ontologically or epistemologically
> (whatever that means?).  There are still atoms and bricks and houses.  
> "Reduction" is a word we invented to describe this.  I don't know why
> someone wants to equate it with "elimination".  What would it mean to
> "eliminate" bricks?  To banish them?  To always refer to them by long
> descriptive phrases in terms of atoms?
>
> Brent

Eliminativism argues that folk-psychology won't even
survive as a convenient shorthand -- but that is an argument
that goes way beyond reduction itself. "House", "heat"
etc are not subject to it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to