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?
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
For more options, visit this group at