David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 189 (3):433-450 (2012)
In this paper, I want to explore the question of whether or not there are laws in psychology. Jaegwon Kim has argued (Supervenience and mind. MIT press, Cambridge; 1993; Mind in a physical world. MIT press, Cambridge 1998) that there are no laws in psychology that contain reference to multiply realized kinds, because statements about such kinds fail to be projectible. After reviewing Kim’s argument for this claim, I show how his conclusion hinges on a hidden assumption: that a kind can only feature in a projectible statement if it is defined by an internal physical property. This assumption, however, is false: constrained kinds can feature in projectible statements, and yet they are not defined by any set of internal physical properties. I suggest that many mental terms actually refer to constrained kinds, and give an example from motor neuroscience of a constrained kind that is multiply realizable and “projectible”: the intention to move voluntarily in a specific direction.
|Keywords||Laws in Psychology Motor Neuroscience Constrained Kinds Projectibility Multiple Realizability|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Richard Boyd (1999). Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa. In R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Mit Press. 141-85.
Jerry A. Fodor (1997). Special Sciences: Still Autonomous After All These Years. Philosophical Perspectives 11 (s11):149-63.
Carl Gillett (2002). The Dimensions of Realization: A Critique of the Standard View. Analysis 62 (4):316-323.
Carl Gillett (2003). The Metaphysics of Realization, Multiple Realizability, and the Special Sciences. Journal of Philosophy 100 (11):591-603.
Rick Grush (2004). The Emulation Theory of Representation: Motor Control, Imagery, and Perception. Behavioral And Brain Sciences 27 (3):377-396.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ron McClamrock (1993). Emergence Unscathed: Kim on Non-Reducible Types. Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3.
Gerhard Schurz (2002). Ceteris Paribus Laws: Classification and Deconstruction. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 57 (3):351Ð372.
Alexander Bird (2011). Lange and Laws, Kinds, and Counterfactuals. In Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew H. Slater (eds.), Carving Nature at its Joints. MIT Press.
D. Dieks, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel & M. Weber (eds.) (2012). Probabilities, Laws and Structure. Springer.
Colin McGinn (1978). Mental States, Natural Kinds and Psychophysical Laws. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 52:195-220.
Kathrin Koslicki (2008). Natural Kinds and Natural Kind Terms. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):789-802.
Bernhard Nickel (2010). Ceteris Paribus Laws: Generics and Natural Kinds. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (06).
John S. Wilkins (forthcoming). Biological Essentialism and the Tidal Change of Natural Kinds. Science and Education.
G. Witmer (2003). Multiple Realizability and Psychological Laws: Evaluating Kim's Challenge. In Sven Walter & Heinz-Dieter Heckmann (eds.), Physicalism and Mental Causation. Imprint Academic. 59.
Eric Funkhouser (2007). Multiple Realizability. Philosophy Compass 2 (2):303–315.
Daniel A. Weiskopf (2011). The Functional Unity of Special Science Kinds. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (2):233 - 258.
Alice Drewery (2001). Dispositions and Ceteris Paribus Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):723-733.
Anne Jaap Jacobson (2003). Mental Representations: What Philosophy Leaves Out and Neuroscience Puts In. Philosophical Psychology 16 (2):189-204.
Added to index2011-08-17
Total downloads33 ( #44,403 of 1,088,400 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #42,750 of 1,088,400 )
How can I increase my downloads?