Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T07:19:11.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Multiple Realizability: A Discussion of Bechtel and Mundale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Sungsu Kim
Sungsu Kim*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Texas Tech University
*
†Department of Philosophy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409–3092; sungsu.kim@ttu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bechtel and Mundale (1999) argue that multiple realizability is not plausible. They point out that neuroscientists assume that psychological traits are realized similarly in homologous brain structures and contend that a biological aspect of the brain that is relevant to neuropsychological state individuation provides evidence against multiple realizability. I argue that Bechtel and Mundale adduce the wrong sort of evidence against multiple realizability. Homologous traits do not provide relevant evidence. It is homoplasious traits of brains that can provide evidence for or against multiple realizability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 606 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank Elliott Sober, Frederick Suppe, and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Batterman, Robert (2000), “Multiple Realizability and Universality”, Multiple Realizability and Universality 51:115–145.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Mundale, Jennifer (1999), “Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States”, Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States 66:175–207.Google Scholar
Bickle, John (1998), Psychological Reduction: The New Wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enç, Berent (1983), “In Defense of the Identity Theory”, In Defense of the Identity Theory 80:279–298.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1975), The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1997), “Special Sciences––Still Autonomous After All These Years”, in Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 11: Mind, Causation, and World. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 149–163.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary (2000), “The Brain’s “New” Science: Psychology, Neurophysiology, and Constraint”, The Brain’s “New” Science: Psychology, Neurophysiology, and Constraint 67 (Proceedings): S388–403.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1998), Mind in a Physical World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orzack, Steven, and Sober, Elliott (1994), “Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism”, Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism 143:361–380. Reprinted in Steven Orzack and Elliott Sober (eds.), Adaptationism and Optimality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 45–63.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1967), “Psychological Predicate”, in Capitan, W. and Merrill, D. (eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 37–48.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence (2000), “Multiple Realizations”, Multiple Realizations 97:635–654.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1988), Reconstructing the Past. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1999), “The Multiple Realizability Argument Against Reduction”, The Multiple Realizability Argument Against Reduction 66:542–564.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (2000), “Evolution and the Problem of Other Minds”, Evolution and the Problem of Other Minds 97:365–386.Google Scholar