David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):381 – 409 (2002)
In this paper, reduction and its pragmatics are discussed in light of the development in computer science of languages to describe processes. The design of higher-level description languages within computer science has had the aim of allowing for description of the dynamics of processes in the (physical) world on a higher level avoiding all (physical) details of these processes. The higher description levels developed have dramatically increased the complexity of applications that came within reach. The pragmatic attitude of a (scientific) practitioner in this area has become inherently anti-reductionist, but based on well-established reduction relations. The paper discusses how this perspective can be related to reduction in general, and to other domains where description of dynamics plays a main role, in particular, biological and cognitive domains.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Jaegwon Kim (1998). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. MIT Press.
John W. Bickle (2008). Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. A Bradford Book.
Daniel C. Dennett (1991). Real Patterns. Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):27-51.
Ernest Nagel (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Citations of this work BETA
William Bechtel (2005). Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biol and Biomed Sci 36 (2):421--441.
William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen (2005). Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2):421-441.
Fred Boogerd, Frank Bruggeman, Catholijn Jonker, Huib Looren de Jong, Allard Tamminga, Jan Treur, Hans Westerhoff & Wouter Wijngaards (2002). Inter-Level Relations in Computer Science, Biology, and Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):463–471.
Similar books and articles
John Bickle (2001). Understanding Neural Complexity: A Role for Reduction. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 11 (4):467-481.
Pierre Poirier (2006). Finding a Place for Elimination in Inter-Level Reductionist Activities: Reply to Wimsatt. Synthese 151 (3):477 - 483.
Mariam Thalos (2002). The Reduction of Causal Processes. Synthese 131 (1):99 - 128.
William Jaworski (2002). Multiple-Realizability, Explanation and the Disjunctive Move. Philosophical Studies 108 (3):289 - 308.
Andrew Melnyk (1995). Two Cheers for Reductionism, or, the Dim Prospects for Nonreductive Materialism. Philosophy of Science 62 (3):370-88.
C. Kenneth Waters (1990). Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics. Philosophy of Science Association 1:125-39.
Markus I. Eronen (2009). Reductionist Challenges to Explanatory Pluralism: Comment on McCauley. Philosophical Psychology 22 (5):637-646.
Jeremy Randel Koons (2006). An Argument Against Reduction in Morality and Epistemology. Philosophical Investigations 29 (3):250–274.
Madison Powers (1996). A Cognitive Access Definition of Privacy. Law and Philosophy 15 (4):369 - 386.
Holger Lyre (2009). The “Multirealization” of Multiple Realizability. In A. Hieke & H. Leitgeb (eds.), Reduction - Abstraction - Analysis. Ontos 79.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #232,509 of 1,792,018 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #138,920 of 1,792,018 )
How can I increase my downloads?