Ontological Reduction

SDE THE JOURNALOF © i_ PHILOSOPHY VOLUME LXXII, NUMBER 3 FEBRUARY 12, 1976 E page 57 Ontological Reduction 71 NOTES AND NEWS Dale Gottlieb COTTER, Dale. Onto leg:cal Reduction À Phil 7357-76 IF proble 76 is Romae a tot. {I} The Lowe them. : S-atem theorem proble ogical reduction; {2} No extensional erterion ‚ehon con be correct; for olanıcal (3) In port con used in place of the not icular. the notion th en “rom ee! ural numbers errs by n way of referring to the e ch BEoù E elemen's of the progress ssion. epis :, (4) the eo ' temic ' suppört— ! deductiv e. induc lotin ons “et ‘tur 1 © tive, 0. : expi 3 ph onot} o Ty, end (5) reduction of everything to sets wrolotes (4) and (5) H nfi m atory cont , will nor op = must etc — hegoreun Lords : Carmelo iKit ha gor etm/ legis’ COM BOOKAmeric L the W-HIL d] MEGRA Ia} u asPANY: e of 21 Avenu BE HN York 10020 Newk. New Yor ghtly by The Published fortni \ Journal of Philosophy, Inc.

Dres Gottlieb, Dale Ontoligical Reduction In: The Journal of Philosophy, LXXIII - 1976 - p. 57 - 76 | GO " LAESR ,8. | are Dro Gorik PAS À. GOTTLIEB, Dale. Ontologicol Reduction. J Phil 73,57-76 12 F 76. In this poper | argue that: (1) The Lowenheim-Skolem theorem poses no problem for ontological reduction; (2) No extensionol crilerion for ontological reduction can be correct; (3) In porticulor, the notion that any "progressive" con be used in place of the natural numbers errs by abstracting from our way of referring to the elements of the progressions; (4) The relations of epistemic suppori—deductive, inductive, explonotory, confirmatory, etc.—must not be too disturbed by reduction; and (5) Harman's neo-Pythagorean reduction of everything to sets violotes (4) and so will not work. The J. of Parlosophg