z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Explaining causal closure
Author(s) -
Justin Tiehen
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
philosophical studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.252
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1573-0883
pISSN - 0031-8116
DOI - 10.1007/s11098-014-0418-5
Subject(s) - counterfactual conditional , dualism , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , closure (psychology) , metaphysics , philosophy of mind , philosophy of language , philosophy , mind–body problem , realm , physicalism , causal chain , counterfactual thinking , law , chemistry , biochemistry , political science
The physical realm is causally closed, according to physicalists like me. But why is it causally closed, what metaphysically explains causal closure? I argue that reductive physicalists are committed to one explanation of causal closure to the exclusion of any independent explanation, and that as a result, they must give up on using a causal argument to attack mind–body dualism. Reductive physicalists should view dualism in much the way that we view the hypothesis that unicorns exist, or that the Kansas City Royals won the 2003 World Series: false, but not objectionable in any distinctively causal way. My argument turns on connections between explanation, counterfactuals, and inductive confirmation.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom