Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 68 (3):377-393 (2001)
|Abstract||I critically evaluate Bickle’s version of scientific theory reduction. I press three main points. First, a small point, Bickle modifies the new wave account of reduction developed by Paul Churchland and Clifford Hooker by treating theories as set-theoretic structures. But that structuralist gloss seems to lose what was distinctive about the Churchland-Hooker account, namely, that a corrected theory must be specified entirely by terms and concepts drawn from the basic reducing theory. Set-theoretic structures are not terms or concepts but the structures that they describe. Second, and more serious, a familiar problem for classical positivist account of reduction resurfaces within this newest wave of thinking, namely, commitment to property identities and inter-theoretic bridge laws (a problem I discussed at more length in "Collapse of the New Wave"). Indeed, this problem is exacerbated by Bickle’s conciliatory treatment of property plasticity, since he is willing to grant that a large number of special science terms denote multiply realized properties, at least if realistically construed. Still, in the end, Bickle sidesteps the reduction of properties by appealing to Hooker’s "function-to-structure token reduction." This is an interesting move with an intriguing concept of reduction. But problems remain. For, third, Bickle and Hooker's function-to-structure token reduction is actually a guised form of eliminative materialism. But that should be unacceptable since the position extends well beyond any modest revisionism for suspect items from a folk theory, say, in folk psychology or folk biology. Instead, it applies to functional terms and concepts employed throughout well-developed and explanatorily successful sciences.|
|Keywords||Neuroscience Reduction Structuralism Bickle, J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Huib Looren De Jong (2006). Explicating Pluralism: Where the Mind to Molecule Pathway Gets Off the Track: Reply to Bickle. Synthese 151 (3):435 - 443.
John Bickle (2002). Concepts Structured Through Reduction: A Structuralist Resource Illuminates the Consolidation – Long-Term Potentiation (Ltp) Link. Synthese 130 (1):123 - 133.
John Bickle (2008). Real Reduction in Real Neuroscience : Metascience, Not Philosophy of Science (and Certainly Not Metaphysics!). In Jakob Hohwy & Jesper Kallestrup (eds.), Being Reduced: New Essays on Reduction, Explanation, and Causation. Oxford University Press.
Huib Looren de Jong (2006). Explicating Pluralism: Where the Mind to Molecule Pathway Gets Off the Track—Reply to Bickle. Synthese 151 (3):435-443.
Ronald P. Endicott (1998). Collapse of the New Wave. Journal of Philosophy 95 (2):53-72.
Verena Gottschling (2005). The Mind Reduced to Molecules? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4 (3):279-283.
Robert C. Richardson (1999). Cognitive Science and Neuroscience: New Wave Reductionism. Philosopical Psychology 12 (3):297-307.
Ronald P. Endicott (2007). Reinforcing the Three ‘R's: Reduction, Reception, and Replacement. In M. Schouten & H. Looren de Jong (eds.), The Matter of the Mind: Philosophical Essays on Psychology, Neuroscience, and Reduction. Blackwell.
Huib L. de Jong & Maurice K. D. Schouten (2005). Ruthless Reductionism: A Review Essay of John Bickle's Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account. [REVIEW] Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):473-486.
Joseph U. Neisser (2005). The Shape of Things to Come: Psychoneural Reduction and the Future of Psychology. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4 (3):259-269.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #74,535 of 723,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 723,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?