The Paradox of a Non-Reductive Explanation

One of the questions that contemporary philosophy of science is trying to answer is how the concepts of explanation and reduction are related. There are two polar positions on the question: one approves the necessary connection between explanation and reduction, and the other is against the identification of these concepts. The principles of reductive explanation imply the possibility of translating the language of high-level theories into the language of fundamental theory. From a philosophical point of view, this means that entities postulated by a high-level theory exist only if there are objects described by the fundamental concept. This view on the problem of reduction entails the need to accept the principle of ontological homogeneity and, as a result, the deterministic stance which in essence does not give rise to contradictions in the case of the methodology of empirical natural science. A non-reductive explanation model denies the possibility of an unequivocal translation of high-level theories into general principles and laws. The main problem of the concept of non-reductive explanation is the statement of the existence of entities non-reducible to the fundamental theory, yet knowable. It seems that this position does not stand up for non-contradiction testing and is inconsistent with the epistemo-logical principles of natural science. In the article, John Smart's reductive model is analyzed with the involvement of the type identity theory. The non-reductive explanatory strategy proposed by the philosopher-evolutionist Konrad Lorenz is considered. Lorenz's law of "fulguration" is compared with the concept of non-reductive emergentism and with the "systemic" principle of Gestalt psychology. The incoherence of the non-reductive explanatory model is demonstrated, and the conclusion is made about the necessary connection between reduction and explanation.

Keywords

Authors

References