History of Reduction

	Revision 8 . . (edit) November 22, 2001 12:19 am by (logged).200.130.xxx [added chemistry meaning]
	Revision 7 . . (edit) October 27, 2001 11:54 am by Eean [got rid of don?t's; too informal and doesn't show up right in IE 6]
	Revision 5 . . (edit) June 3, 2001 9:26 pm by KoyaanisQatsi

---

Difference (from prior major revision) (minor diff, author diff)

Added: 2a3

* In chemistry, reduction is the reverse of oxidation, i.e. the formal [oxidation state]? of an atom (independant or within a molecule) is reduced by the addition of electrons.

Changed: 5c6,7

Reduction is a difficult piece of philosophical terminology. The basic notion is this: If we reduce X to Y, then whenever we talk about X, we can be understood to be talking about Y instead.

Reduction is a difficult piece of philosophical terminology. The basic notion is this: If we reduce X to Y, then whenever we talk about X, we can be understood to be talking about Y instead.

Changed: 7c9

So, for example, if we reduce the mental to the physical, then whenever we talk of pains, thoughts, and decisions, we can be understood as talking about physical events in the brain. Does that mean that we must then think that pains, thoughts, and decisions don?t exist? Not necessarily and usually not.

So, for example, if we reduce the mental to the physical, then whenever we talk of pains, thoughts, and decisions, we can be understood as talking about physical events in the brain. Does that mean that we must then think that pains, thoughts, and decisions do not exist? Not necessarily and usually not.

Changed: 9c11

Here is an example of a reduction from metaphysics. The BundleTheory? says that objects can be reduced to collections of properties; so whenever we talk about objects, we can be understood to be talking about bundles of properties. Does this mean that the bundle theory says that objects don?t exist ? Perhaps not objects as we had thought of them, but the theory is trying to give an account of what objects are; namely, they are bundles of properties. So the bundle theory is not denying that objects exist--just that objects are the same as bundles of properties. The only reason one would have for maintaining, then that the bundle theory holds that objects do not exist is if you think that, according to our ordinary concepts, something simply cannot both be a bundle of properties and an object.

Here is an example of a reduction from metaphysics. The BundleTheory? says that objects can be reduced to collections of properties; so whenever we talk about objects, we can be understood to be talking about bundles of properties. Does this mean that the bundle theory says that objects do not exist ? Perhaps not objects as we had thought of them, but the theory is trying to give an account of what objects are; namely, they are bundles of properties. So the bundle theory is not denying that objects exist--just that objects are the same as bundles of properties. The only reason one would have for maintaining, then that the bundle theory holds that objects do not exist is if you think that, according to our ordinary concepts, something simply cannot both be a bundle of properties and an object.