David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 66 (4):542-564 (1999)
Reductionism is often understood to include two theses: (1) every singular occurrence that the special sciences can explain also can be explained by physics; (2) every law in a higher-level science can be explained by physics. These claims are widely supposed to have been refuted by the multiple realizability argument, formulated by Putnam (1967, 1975) and Fodor (1968, 1975). The present paper criticizes the argument and identifies a reductionistic thesis that follows from one of the argument's premises
|Keywords||Occurrence Reductionism Science Fodor, J Putnam, H|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ned Block (2008). Anti-Reductionism Slaps Back. Noûs 31 (s11):107-132.
Andrew Lugg (1975). Putnam on Reductionism. Cognition 3 (3):289-293.
RW Batterman (2000). Multiple Realizability and Universality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1):115-145.
Thomas Polger (2002). Putnam's Intuition. Philosophical Studies 109 (2):143 - 170.
Lawrence A. Shapiro (2000). Multiple Realizations. Journal of Philosophy 97 (12):635-654.
John Bickle (1992). Multiple Realizability and Psychophysical Reduction. Behavior and Philosophy 20 (1):47-58.
Sven Walter (2002). Need Multiple Realizability Deter the Identity-Theorist? Grazer Philosophische Studien 65 (1):51-75.
John Bickle (1995). Connectionism, Reduction, and Multiple Realizability. Behavior and Philosophy 23 (2):29-39.
Justin Clarke-Doane (2008). Multiple Reductions Revisited. Philosophia Mathematica 16 (2):244-255.
Ricardo Restrepo (2012). Multiple Realizability and Novel Causal Powers. Abstracta 6 (2):216-230.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads125 ( #5,521 of 1,009,294 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #18,455 of 1,009,294 )
How can I increase my downloads?