The Metaphysics of Multi-Level Explanation

dc.contributor.advisorFrisch, Mathiasen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcElhoes, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.departmentPhilosophyen_US
dc.contributor.publisherDigital Repository at the University of Marylanden_US
dc.contributor.publisherUniversity of Maryland (College Park, Md.)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-28T06:35:05Z
dc.date.available2013-06-28T06:35:05Z
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.description.abstractIt is widely presumed that the world exhibits hierarchical structure: that the objects of science can be arranged into levels and that some of those levels are higher than others. Organisms, on this view, are at a higher level than cells, which are at a higher level than molecules, which are at a higher level than atoms. Although it is popular, this "layered worldview" faces notable challenges. Some critics contend that it is hopelessly idealized or even ultimately incoherent. Others contend that it makes no difference to our explanatory practices and has no metaphysical or epistemic significance. I argue that these critics are mistaken. By undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the logical and metaphysical nature of hierarchical structures and their application within contemporary philosophy and ecology, I argue for three claims: that hierarchies exist (insofar as the objects of scientific discourse exist); that the domain of ecological interests is hierarchically structured in a way that is incompatible with ontological reductionism - the idea that everything in the scientific domain is, in fact, contained within the "fundamental level of reality"; and that the hierarchical structure of the world often (but not always) justifies the practice of describing, explaining, and analyzing things using hierarchical terms. My analysis begins with a review of the existing accounts of hierarchies in ecology, biology, sociology, and economics. Arguing that these accounts are inadequate, I then develop an improved account called Core Hierarchy Theory (CHT). CHT, I argue, is an improvement over its predecessors in two respects: generality and simplicity. Other accounts are either too narrow (e.g., failing to count branching hierarchies as genuine hierarchies) or make unnecessary theoretical commitments. Using a formalized version of CHT, I then prove four theorems that are relevant to well-known philosophical debates that involve hierarchies. For example, I show that two of the core metaphysical commitments of the ontological reductionist - that the higher level sciences reduce to fundamental science and that all of reality is, in fact, contained within the fundamental level - are in fact inconsistent with the most basic and unrestricted conception of hierarchical structures provided by CHT.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/14086
dc.subject.pqcontrolledPhilosophyen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledMetaphysicsen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledPhilosophy of scienceen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledEcologyen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledHierarchiesen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledHolismen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledLevelsen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledMereologyen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledReductionen_US
dc.titleThe Metaphysics of Multi-Level Explanationen_US
dc.typeDissertationen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
McElhoes_umd_0117E_14177.pdf
Size:
2.59 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format