Anomalism

McDowell and Hornsby subsequently come to question the cause-law principle, which, when appended to the interaction and anomalism principles (both of which are accepted by McDowell and Hornsby) leads to the token-identity thesis they question. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Davidson's explicit considerations in favor of mental anomalism appeal to factors about the interpretation of behavior ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

That mental event is also a physical event (as is the action it explains), according to Anomalous Monism, because it stands in causal relations (the interaction principle), and thus (given the cause-law and anomalism principles) must instantiate physical ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

In light of Davidson's modesty about provability, and lack of explicit argumentation, some commentators (Child 1992; see also McDowell 1979) have suggested that mere reflection on the kinds of generalizations that we draw upon in coming to understand each other supports (but cannot prove) mental anomalism. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Davidson cannot directly embrace the first horn of this dilemma, since this would eliminate the need for independent argument, appealing to mental anomalism, to establish the token-identity of those mental events with physical events. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Now, the clearest appearance of the causal closure thesis comes when Davidson is offering the official argument for the anomalism principle (Davidson 1970, 222). ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Second, it assumes that there is a firm distinction between descriptive laws and relations, on the one hand, and normative laws and relations, on the other, that can bear the weight of mental anomalism (Kim 1985, 383) The first assumption is clearly mistaken; as already noted, Davidson heavily emphasizes the focus on strict laws in his own definition of Anomalous Monism, and explicitly allows for the possibility of hedged laws incorporating mental predicates. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

One key reason for so limiting the reach of Anomalous Monism, as we shall see (4.2), is that it is the rational status of the relevant mental events that Davidson usually cites as responsible for mental anomalism. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Mental anomalism, as initially formulated by Davidson, holds that there can be no strict laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted and explained (Davidson 1970, 208). ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

The anomalism principle states that there are no strict laws on the basis of which mental events can predict, explain, or be predicted or explained by other events. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

As we have seen above, Kim thinks that mental anomalism is susceptible of a kind of proof. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Yalowitz 1998 has, however, provided an interpretation of Anomalous Monism stressing Davidson's views on causality and the nomic status of dispositions (see 4.3) in which causal closure is derived from the cause-law principle, token-identity and the anomalism of causally defined properties. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Davidson offered loose ruminations concerning rationality and rationalizing explanations, which purportedly constitute the very nature of mental properties, in support of the anomalism principle ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

This is how Kim makes sense of Davidson's suggestive claim that mental anomalism is grounded in the fact that mental and physical explanation owe their allegiance to different sources of evidence. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

But it does seem to be an attractive way of reconciling supervenience with mental anomalism so that Anomalous Monism remains a consistent theory. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

He can respond that we already know, a priori, that any particular mental event must instantiate some physical property if it causally interacts with any mental or physical event, given the cause-law and anomalism principles. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

We have been looking at different ways of making sense of and justifying Davidson's claim that mental anomalism stems from the constitutive role of rationality in mental ascription. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

Psychophysical anomalism, the other component of mental anomalism and the one that denies the possibility of such strict laws, is thus the view that Davidson focuses on establishing. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

That is true of Davidson's argument for monism shorn of any commitment to causal closure: someone who espouses dualism along with the cause-law, interaction, and anomalism principles but eschews causal closure is nevertheless shown by that argument that dualism is inconsistent with her other commitments. ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

(Davidson also has a tendency simply to identify as ˜physical™ those properties that figure in strict laws (Davidson 1970, 224; Davidson 1995, 266), but this would of course beg the question of mental anomalism.) ❋ Yalowitz, Steven (2005)

[Justin] and [Jackie] new [dictionary] is Anomical! ❋ Just Jax (2022)

That kid: Yeah, remember [that one game] on ROBLOX, Anomic? Other kid: Don't get me fucking started with [the dam] [prop] blocking my guy ❋ Blocktaco (2020)

bright mode anom : hey dude whats up! did you do the [assignment] ? you : hey sup, how bout we go to get a coffee? while we're at it. [dark mode] anom : ... you : *5 [step back] from the person :D ❋ Curiku (2019)

Girl: [hey daddy] Anom: [hey bbg] [lemme get] yo email ❋ RichardLongfellow (2022)

Roblox Anomic [sounds fun] at [first], but its not ❋ 88k3 (2020)

[Can you] [message me] on the Anomic Community Forum? ❋ LinuxCE (2022)