In “Redescription, Reduction, and Emergence: A Response to Tobias Hansson Wahlberg,” Elder-Vass takes the opportunity to reply to my criticism of his theory in “Holism, Emergence, and the Crucial Distinction.” In this response, I show how methodological individualists may respond to his argument against their position and I argue that Elder-Vass fails to provide reasons as to why his particular distinction between individualist and holist explanations should be adopted.
Elder-VassDave. 2010. The Causal Power of Social Structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Elder-VassDave. 2014. “Redescription, Reduction, and Emergence: A Response to Tobias Hansson Wahlberg.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences44 (6): 792-97.
3.
ElsterJon. 1985. Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Hansson WahlbergTobias. 2014. “Elder-Vass on the Causal Power of Social Structures.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences44 (6): 774-91.
5.
Hansson WahlbergTobias. 2014. “Causally Redundant Social Objects: Rejoinder to Elder-Vass.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences44 (6): 798–809.
6.
JacksonFrankPettitPhilip. 1992. “In Defense of Explanatory Ecumenism.” In Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 8, 1-21, England: Cambridge University Press
7.
WatkinsJohn William N.(1952) 1973. “Ideal Types and Historical Explanation.” In Modes of Individualism & Collectivism, edited by O’NeillJ., 143-65. London: Heinemann.
8.
ZahleJulie. 2014. “Holism, Emergence, and the Crucial Distinction.” In Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate, edited by ZahleJ.CollinF., 1-19. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Springer.
