Abstract
In a series of recent papers, Jonathan Schaffer (2017a,b) presents a novel framework for understanding grounding. Metaphysical laws play a central role. In addition, Schaffer argues that, contrary to what many have thought, there is no special ‘explanatory gap’ between consciousness and the physical world. Instead, explanatory gaps are everywhere. I draw out and criticize the methodology for metaphysics implicit in Schaffer’s presentation. In addition, I argue that even if we accept Schaffer’s picture, there remains a residual explanatory gap between consciousness and the physical. The residual gap does most of the same philosophical work as the original (e.g. in conceivability arguments). Schaffer has introduced a troublesome metaphysical methodology that fails to follow through on its biggest promise: To deflate the explanatory gap.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 191-203 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Journal of Consciousness Studies |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 5-6 |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2019 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Philosophy
- Psychology (miscellaneous)
- Artificial Intelligence
Cite this
Grounding the gaps or bumping the rug? On explanatory gaps and metaphysical methodology. / Rabin, Gabriel.
In: Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 26, No. 5-6, 01.01.2019, p. 191-203.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Grounding the gaps or bumping the rug?
T2 - On explanatory gaps and metaphysical methodology
AU - Rabin, Gabriel
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - In a series of recent papers, Jonathan Schaffer (2017a,b) presents a novel framework for understanding grounding. Metaphysical laws play a central role. In addition, Schaffer argues that, contrary to what many have thought, there is no special ‘explanatory gap’ between consciousness and the physical world. Instead, explanatory gaps are everywhere. I draw out and criticize the methodology for metaphysics implicit in Schaffer’s presentation. In addition, I argue that even if we accept Schaffer’s picture, there remains a residual explanatory gap between consciousness and the physical. The residual gap does most of the same philosophical work as the original (e.g. in conceivability arguments). Schaffer has introduced a troublesome metaphysical methodology that fails to follow through on its biggest promise: To deflate the explanatory gap.
AB - In a series of recent papers, Jonathan Schaffer (2017a,b) presents a novel framework for understanding grounding. Metaphysical laws play a central role. In addition, Schaffer argues that, contrary to what many have thought, there is no special ‘explanatory gap’ between consciousness and the physical world. Instead, explanatory gaps are everywhere. I draw out and criticize the methodology for metaphysics implicit in Schaffer’s presentation. In addition, I argue that even if we accept Schaffer’s picture, there remains a residual explanatory gap between consciousness and the physical. The residual gap does most of the same philosophical work as the original (e.g. in conceivability arguments). Schaffer has introduced a troublesome metaphysical methodology that fails to follow through on its biggest promise: To deflate the explanatory gap.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068477731&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068477731&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85068477731
VL - 26
SP - 191
EP - 203
JO - Journal of Consciousness Studies
JF - Journal of Consciousness Studies
SN - 1355-8250
IS - 5-6
ER -