Abstract
David Papineau's question, 'Why Supervenience?' [5], is a
good one. The thesis that the mental supervenes on the physi- cal is widespread, but has rarely been defended by detailed argument. Believers in supervenience should be grateful to Papineau for coming to their aid; but I think they will be disappointed in the argument he gives. In what follows, I shall show that
Papineau's argument for supervenience relies on a premiss that is either trivial or as contentious as supervenience itself.