ABSTRACT
We have been accused of ignoring the most plausible versions of physicalism (Robinson 1991, Pettit 1993), of not taking account of the methodology of physical science (Smith 1992, Papineau 1993) and of giving an invalid argument against supervenience (Menuge 1993). We have rebutted some of these accusations in detail elsewhere (Crane 1993, Mellor 1993). Here we address more general issues.
