Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-08T18:11:44.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can the Eleatic Principle be Justified?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Mark Colyvan
Mark Colyvan*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Eleatic Principle or causal criterion is a causal test that entities must pass in order to gain admission to some philosophers’ ontology. This principle justifies belief in only those entities to which causal power can be attributed, that is, to those entities which can bring about changes in the world. The idea of such a test is rather important in modem ontology, since it is neither without intuitive appeal nor without influential supporters. Its supporters have included David Armstrong (1978, Vol2, 5), Brian Ellis (1990, 22) and Hartry Field (1989, 68) to name but a few.

Clearly though, if such a principle is to be anything more than just a statement of a certain version of physicalism, it must be argued for. In this paper I will look at the arguments that have been put forward for the principle and suggest some problems for each of these.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 313 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Armstrong, D.M. 1978. Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D.M. 1989. A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azzouni, J. 1997a. ‘Thick Episternic Access: Distinguishing the Mathematical from the Empirical.’ Journal of Philosophy 94 (1997): 472–84.Google Scholar
Azzouni, J. 1997b. ‘Applied Mathematics, Existential Commitment and the Quine-Putnam Indispensability Thesis.’ Philosophia Mathematica (3) 5 (1997): 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1983. ‘Mathematical Truth.’ Reprinted in Philosophy of Mathematics Selected Readings, ed. Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H.. Second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 403–20.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. 1994. ‘Selective Realism in the Philosophy of Physics.’ Monist 77 (1994): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheyne, C. 1998. ‘Existence Claims and Causality.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, (1998): 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, M. 1998. ‘In Defence of Indispensability.’ Philosophia Mathematica (3), 6 (1998): 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. 1967. The Meaning of Relativity. 6th edition, London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. 1990. Truth and Objectivity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Field, H. 1989. Realism, Mathematics and Modality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. 199?. ‘Some Ins and Outs of Indispensability: A Modal-Structural Perspective.’ In Logic in Florence ed. Cantini, A. Casari, E. and Minari, P.. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. and Pettit, P. 1990. ‘Program Explanation: A General Perspective.’ Analysis 50 (1990): 107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosniowski, C. 1980. A First Course in Algebraic Topology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. 1992. ‘Indispensability and Practice.’ Journal of Philosophy 89 (1992): 275–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, P. 1995. ‘Naturalism and Ontology.’ Philosophia Mathematica (3) 3 (1995): 248–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, G. 1982. ‘Armstrong on the Eleatic Principle and Abstract Entities.’ Philosophical Studies 41 (1982): 285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plato, 1935. Sophist. Translated by Cornford, F. M. in Plato's Theory of Knowledge. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1971. Philosophy of Logic. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1953. ‘On What There Is.’ Reprinted in From a Logical Point of View. Second edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1–19.Google Scholar
Resnik, M. 1995. Scientific Vs. Mathematical Realism: The Indispensability Argument, Philosophia Mathematica (3) 3 (1995): 166–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. 1963. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. 1990. ‘Explanation- Opening Address.’ in Explanation and Its Limits, ed. Knowles, D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1993. ‘Mathematics and Indispensability.’ Philosophical Review 102 (1993): 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolszczan, A. and Frail, D.A. 1992. ‘A Planetary System Around the Millisecond Pulsar PSR 1257+12.’ Nature 355 (9 January 1992): 145–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar