Morgenbesser’s Coin

Before a fair, indeterministic coin is tossed, Lucky, who is causally isolated from the coin-tossing mechanism, declines to bet on heads. The coin lands heads. The consensus is that the following counterfactual is true:(M:) If Lucky had bet heads, he would have won the bet.It is also widely believed that to rule (M) true, any plausible semantics for counterfactuals must invoke causal independence. But if that’s so, the hope of giving a reductive analysis of causation in terms of counterfactuals is undermined. Here I argue that there is compelling reason to question the assumption that (M) is true.

Knowledge

Chapter 2 uses the idea that inquiry into specific questions is an activity with a constitutive aim and that knowledge is this constitutive aim to develop a non-reductive account of knowledge. The key idea is that certain activities with constitutive aims do not lend themselves to reductive analysis and instead afford a so-called network analysis in which each element cannot be properly understood without grasping the connections with other elements in the network. After addressing objections, Chapter 2 compares the account developed here with Williamson’s non-reductive account of knowledge as a sui generis mental state and argues that the former is preferable to the latter.

Chance in the World

This book argues that objective chance, or probability, should not be understood as a metaphysical primitive, nor as a dispositional property of certain systems (“propensity”). Given that traditional accounts of objective probability in terms of frequencies are widely agreed to be also untenable, there is a clear need for a new account that can overcome the problems of older views. A Humean, reductive analysis of objective chance is offered, one partially based on the work of David Lewis, but diverging from Lewis’ approach in many respects. It is shown that “Humean objective chances” (HOCs) can fulfill the role that chances are supposed to play of being a guide to one’s subjective expectations. In a chapter coauthored by Roman Frigg, HOC is shown to make sense of physics’ uses of objective probabilities, both in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. And in the final chapter, the relationship between chance and causation is analyzed; it is argued that there is no direct connection between causation and objective chance, but that, instead, causation is related to subjective probability.

Metaphysical Constraints, Primitivism, and Reduction

The argument from absence of analysis (AAA) infers primitivism about some x from the absence of a reductive analysis of x. But philosophers use the word ‘primitive’ to mean many distinct things. I argue that there is a robust sense of ‘primitive’ present in the metaphysics literature that cannot be inferred via the AAA. Successfully demonstrating robust primitivism about some x requires showing two things at once: that a reduction of x is not possible and that an explanatorily deep characterization of x is not available. In order to secure this second explanatory claim, the AAA must wrongly assume that reductive analysis is our only source of explanatory characterization. I argue that this is false by offering a distinct way of providing explanatory characterizations backed by suitably understood metaphysical constraints. While there remains a minimal sense of ‘primitive’ inferable via the AAA, this sense is exhausted by the denial of reduction. With minimal primitivism as its target, the AAA is uninteresting.

Belief-That and Belief-In

Let propositionalism be the thesis that all mental attitudes are propositional. Anti-propositionalists have focused on trying to resist reductive analyses of apparently non-propositional attitudes, such as fearing a dog and loving a spouse, into propositional form. This chapter explores the anti-propositionalist’s prospects for going on the offensive, trying to show that some apparently propositional attitudes, notably belief and judgment, can be given a reductive analysis in terms of non-propositional attitudes. Although the notion that belief is a non-propositional attitude may seem ludicrous at first, it has been given an admirable defense by Franz Brentano, a defense which this chapter expounds and deepens.

The Failure of Conceptual Analysis

Dispositions are often regarded with suspicion. Consequently, some philosophers try to semantically reduce disposition ascriptions to sentences containing only non-dispositional vocabulary. Typically, reductionists attempt to analyze disposition ascriptions in terms of conditional statements. These conditional statements, like other modal claims, are often interpreted in terms of possible worlds semantics. However, conditional analyses are subject to a number of problems and counterexamples, including random coincidences, void satisfaction, masks, antidotes, mimics, altering, and finks. Some analyses fail to reduce disposition ascriptions to non-modal vocabulary. If reductive analysis of disposition ascriptions fails, then perhaps there can be metaphysical reduction of dispositions without semantic reduction. However, the reductionist still owes us an account of what makes disposition ascriptions true. But to posit a causal power for every unreduced dispositional predicate is an overreaction to the failure of conceptual analysis.