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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.