more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Science represents our best systematic understanding of the world, and if a certain notion proves unneeded in our best attempt at that, this provides strong evidence that what this notion concerns is not ontologically basic.
Gist of Idea
If a notion is ontologically basic, it should be needed in our best attempt at science
Source
Jonathan Schaffer (Causation and Laws of Nature [2008], 3.2)
Book Ref
'Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics', ed/tr. Sider/Hawthorne/Zimmerman [Blackwell 2008], p.92
A Reaction
But is the objective of science to find out what is 'ontologically basic'? If scientists can't get a purchase on a question, they have no interest in it. What are electrons made of?
| 14599 | Three types of reduction: Theoretical (of terms), Definitional (of concepts), Ontological (of reality) [Schaffer,J] |
| 14600 | Analysis aims at secure necessary and sufficient conditions [Schaffer,J] |
| 14601 | Individuation aims to count entities, by saying when there is one [Schaffer,J] |
| 14603 | 'Reification' occurs if we mistake a concept for a thing [Schaffer,J] |
| 14604 | If a notion is ontologically basic, it should be needed in our best attempt at science [Schaffer,J] |
| 14605 | Tropes are the same as events [Schaffer,J] |
| 14606 | Only ideal conceivability could indicate what is possible [Schaffer,J] |
| 14607 | T adds □p→p for reflexivity, and is ideal for modeling lawhood [Schaffer,J] |