Metaphysics has undergone two major innovations in recent decades. First, naturalistic metaphysicians have argued that our best science provides an important source of evidence for metaphysical theories. Second, social metaphysicians have begun to explore the nature of social entities such as groups, institutions, and social categories. Surprisingly, these projects have largely kept their distance from one another. Katherine Hawley has recently argued that, unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences are not sufficiently successful to provide evidence about the metaphysical nature of social entities. By contrast, I defend an optimistic view of naturalistic social metaphysics. Drawing on a case study of research into contextual effects in social epidemiology, I show that social science can provide a valuable evidence for social metaphysicians.

中文翻译：

---

对自然化的社会形而上学的乐观：对霍利的回应

近几十年来，形而上学经历了两项重大创新。首先，自然主义形而上学者认为，我们最好的科学为形而上学理论提供了重要的证据来源。其次，社会形而上学家已经开始探索社会实体的性质，例如团体，机构和社会类别。令人惊讶的是，这些项目在很大程度上彼此之间保持距离。凯瑟琳·霍利（Katherine Hawley）最近争辩说，与自然科学不同，社会科学没有足够成功地提供有关社会实体的形而上本质的证据。相比之下，我捍卫对自然主义社会形而上学的乐观看法。通过对社会流行病学中的语境影响进行研究的案例研究，我表明社会科学可以为社会形而上学医师提供有价值的证据。