Explanations 2
Reduction, levels and styles of research
Kim (2000):
To call someone 'a reductionist', in high-culture press if
not in serious philosophy, goes beyond mere criticism or
expression of doctrinal disagreement; it is to put a
person down, to heap scorn on him and his work.
If you want to be politically correct in philosophical
matters, you would not dare come anywhere near
reductionism, nor a reductionist.
1
PM: Reduction of laws
• 5-steps model for explanation
• Reduction iff
aggregation, identification, or approximation
• Eliminative: iff severely corrective approximation
• Non-eliminative: otherwise
• Reduction by identification based on type-type
identities between concepts, Examples:
–
–
–
–
water = an aggregate of H2O-molecules
genes = aggregates of DNA-molecules
macroscopic pressure = kinetic pressure
equal thermal state = equal mean kinetic energy
2
Reduction of emergent phenomena by simulation
• piling wood chips by termites: 2 simulations
– by programming the termites to take chips to
predesignated spots
– by programming them with two behavioral rules:
• if you carry nothing and bump into a chip, pick it up
• if you carry a chip and bump into another, put it down
• random direction after bumping into something
• second, emergentist, solution is reductive:
– successive application + aggregation (+ identification)
3
Reduction and correlation of concepts
Causey: main distinction:
general identities vs causal correlations
1th criterion: (both need empirical support, but) only the
second require explanation
practical but circular
2th criterion: substitution, salva veritate
noncircular but impractical
Causey: subsequent distinction
object vs attribute identities
Criticisms
4
Degrees and kinds of reduction and
correlation of concepts
3. Singular type-type (one-one) reductions
– perfect + approximate version
2. Multiple type-type (one-many) reductions
– perfect + approximate version
– ‘multiple realizability’ argument against reduction fails
1. Quasi type-type (one-one) reductions
– perfect version only
Correlation: only singular and multiple
– with perfect and approximate versions
– 'quasi-correlation' makes no sense
5
Correlation and reduction of concepts
(perfect or approximate): degrees and examples
• Correlations
• Identities
– one-one (singular):
• aa[a]
– one-one (singular):
- mean kinetic energy (mke) temperature
– many-one (multiple):
• AA[A]
• Aa[A]
– many-one (multiple):
- isotopic atoms  chemical element
- translation/vibration mke  temperature
– quasi-:
• ??
– quasi-:
- wave length  color (classification)
6
Outline of representations
7
Conceptual levels, sublevels and sides
8
Technical definitions
• Singular type-type reductions:
– a type of a higher level description of an aggregate,
a macro-type, is ontologically identified with one type
of a lower level, a micro-type
• Multiple reductions:
– a macro-type is ontologically identified with a union
of (usually disjunct) micro-types
• Quasi reductions:
– a macro-type is ontologically identified with the union
of all micro-tokens that ontologically realize the
macro-type.
9
Quasi-TT-reduction combined with proper TT-reduction
10
Positions
Strategies and Positions
• radical reductionism
– all macro-concepts and -laws can be reduced
• radical holism
– no, at least no interesting ones
• restricted reductionism (and holism)
– some will be, others may be not
Strategies: besides radical reductionistic & radical holistic:
the mixed co-evolving strategy:
– cooperation of reductionistic and holistic programs
– using also other kinds of ‘vertical’ explanation
– and all kinds of ‘horizontal’ explanation
11
Refined Theory Reduction Model (RTRM):
“example”
Old phenomenological
New thermodynamical
concept/law/theory
concept/law/theory
equivalence
attempted
correction
successful
derivation
replacement
derivation (?)
Old kinetic
concept/law/theory
New statistical mechanics
concept/law/theory
12
Levels and styles in research
Interlevel research
• Burton: 4 kinds of research
– 3 x interlevel
• downward, upward, intermediate
– 1 x monolevel: lateral
• epistemological levels, related to
– ontological levels and/or
– epistemological styles
• causal, functional, intentional
13
Matrix of Levels and Styles
Aggregation |Styles of description and explanation
|Take-off level
level
|causal
functional
intentional |of disciplines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
social
individual
organs
cells
substances
molecules
atoms
el. particles
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
social sciences
psychology
biology
chemistry
physics
14
Interfield (IF-)theories (Darden & Maull)
• IF-theories aim at identifying relationships between
phenomena of different fields
• A field: area with a focal problem, a domain of relevant facts,
explanatory goals, special methods and techniques, and
sometimes, but not always, laws and theories.
• Ex: theory of chromosomes, relating cytology and genetics
• Relations: localization, identities, structure-function, causal
• Frequently: interlevel and/or interstyle theories
• Interfield (IF-)matrix of types of interfield research, theories,
programs: mono-/inter-style x mono/inter-level
• (R)TRM: extreme special case, hence: concretization
15
Styles and their relation
(Millikan/Mackor)
• Styles: intentional, functional, causal
• Causal explication of functional style
– ito causal-historical relations of “proper functions”
• Functional explications of intentional style
– ito proper functions of beliefs en desires
16
MB-research (= BCN-research)
• neuroscience: literally, sometimes figuratively
• minimal 4 ontological levels:
– atoms, cells, organs, individuals (in env.)
– atoms, nodes, modules, artefacts (in env.)
• 3 styles of description and explanation:
– causal, functional, intentional
• 4x3 matrix of levels and styles
– intentional style only on highest level
17
4 Levels of representation of
individuals (+ environment)
• Individuals (one ontological level) as:
– wholes of mind and body in an environment
• intentional, functional, causal
– organized systems of organs and the like in ...
• functional, causal
– organized systems of cells in …..
• functional, causal
– ‘organized’ systems of molecules in …..
• causal
18
The biophysicalist reductive ambition,
requiring intermediate correlative successes
• All relations reducible to:
– substantial ‘horizontal’ relations
– conceptual ‘vertical’ relations
• horizontal: causal, functional, intentional
• vertical: 1-1, many(lower)-1(higher), quasi-identities
between ‘representation types’
• non-eliminative reduction (as usual in natural sciences)
• not:‘reduction of M to B’,
• but ‘reduction of MB to ……’
19
2 levels model
of individual I in environment E
• 2 representation-levels for I and E
– MB macro-portrait: individual + system of organs etc.
– biophysical micro-portrait: system of cells + molecules
• on both levels interaction relations
– in causal, functional or intentional terms
• 3 kinds of vertical conceptual relations:
– quasi, multiple, singular identities
• for description and explanation a level leap v.v. is
allowed, using identities
20
The stratified IE-model of mind-body research
21
A neuro-structure
<N,T,c,a> is a neuro-structure iff:
N: the set of neurons of an organism
T: a discrete time-interval (in milliseconds)
c: a directed connection relation
c(n,n'): neuron n is (via an axon) connected with
(dendrite of) neuron n'
a: activation function
a(n,t)=1(0): neuron n is at t (not) activated
Basic (observational) law:
If a(n,t) then a(n', t+1) for every n' such that c(n,n')
22
Examples, SSC 68-76
Example 70-75: 2 types of youth delinquency
– adolescency delinquency (AD)
• starting with puberty, ending after adolescency
– persistent delinquency (PD)
• starting before puberty, continuing after adolescency
23
2 Different Explanations
• Functional explanation of AD:
– normal psychophysiological constitution
– abnormal environment wrt role models
• causal explanation of PD:
– abnormal psychophysiological constitution
– normal environment
• NB: abnormal: weak positive causal factor
24