Many education theorists are non-reductive physicalists, that is, while they agree everything that exists is physical, they argue (inconsistently, in my opinion) that "there are metaphysically independent special-science laws that underwrite special-science explanations that are irreducible to the explanations supplied by physics." This article argues that the two views actually are consistent, and raises the question of whether the fundamental laws of physics are themselves irreducible to (what would be) the explanations supplied by physics. I think a lot depends on what you consider to be an explanation: if it's just probabilities, or patterns, or regularities, then sure, you get consistency, but if explanation requires a causal mechanism then the special science laws have to be reducible to that causal mechanism. Image: Hugh McCarthy.
Today: 0 Total: 13 [Direct link] [Share]
