Reference no: EM133345895

Argument: Let us grant that Fodor's argument against reductionism shows that special sciences do not reduce to physics. Part of the reason for this irreducibility is that there are an infinite number of possible ways that special science properties can be physically realized, and an awareness of these infinite possibilities is not enough for anyone to predict the way the future is going to be: they are not projectable (in Goodman's sense of projectability). But, since there is only a finite number of possible ways special science properties can be chemically realized, it follows that these disjunctive chemical properties are projectable. Therefore, special sciences do reduce to chemistry, both epistemologically and metaphysically.

Essay Question: After explaining all of the course material that is relevant to the above argument, give two reasons to think it is unsound.

Hint: Describe the model of reduction that Fodor is objecting to, explain why infinite possibilities and non-projectability are problems for that model, then raise two objections to the argument found above. Make it clear that you are giving a reason (e.g., say something like, "The second reason is...") and make it clear exactly what you are objecting to (e.g., say something like, "The argument assumes that X, but...").