Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:45:41.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Confusions Concerning Multiple Realization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Thomas W. Polger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite some recent advances, multiple realization remains a largely misunderstood thesis. Consider the dispute between Lawrence Shapiro and Carl Gillett over the application of Shapiro's recipe for deciding when we have genuine cases of multiple realization. I argue that Gillett follows many philosophers in mistakenly supposing that multiple realization is absolute and transitive. Both of these are problematic. They are tempting only when we extract the question of multiple realization from the explanatory context in which it is invoked. Anchoring multiple realizability in its theoretical context provides grounds for arbitrating disagreements. Doing so, I argue, favors the view advanced by Shapiro.

Type
Multiple Realizability, Explanation, and Special Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 537 - 547
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.)

References

Adams, F. (1979), “Properties, Functionalism, and the Identity Theory”, Properties, Functionalism, and the Identity Theory 1 (2): 153–179..Google Scholar
Aizawa, K. (2007), “The Biochemistry of Memory Consolidation: A Model System for the Philosophy of Mind”, The Biochemistry of Memory Consolidation: A Model System for the Philosophy of Mind 155:65–98.Google Scholar
Aizawa, K. (forthcoming), “Neuroscience and Multiple Realization: A Reply to Bechtel and Mundale”, Synthese.Google Scholar
Aizawa, K., and Gillett, C. (forthcoming), “Multiple Realization and Methodology in the Neurological and Psychological Science”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Mundale, J. (1999), “Multiple Realization Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States”, Multiple Realization Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States 66:175–207.Google Scholar
Bickle, J. (1998), Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bickle, J. (2003), Philosophy of Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickle, J. (2005), “Molecular Neuroscience to My Rescue (Again): Reply to Looren de Jong and Schouten”, Molecular Neuroscience to My Rescue (Again): Reply to Looren de Jong and Schouten 18 (4): 487–494..Google Scholar
Block, N., and Fodor, J. (1972), “What Psychological States Are Not”, What Psychological States Are Not 81:159–181.Google Scholar
Clapp, L. (2001), “Disjunctive Properties: Multiple Realizations”, Disjunctive Properties: Multiple Realizations 98:111–136.Google Scholar
Couch, M. (2004), “Discussion: A Defense of Bechtel and Mundale”, Discussion: A Defense of Bechtel and Mundale 71:198–204.Google Scholar
de Jong, H. Looren, and Schouten, M. K. D. (2005), “Ruthless Reductionism: A Review Essay of John Bickle's Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account”, Ruthless Reductionism: A Review Essay of John Bickle's Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account 18 (4): 473–486..Google Scholar
Enç, B. (1983), “In Defense of the Identity Theory”, In Defense of the Identity Theory 80:279–298.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. ([1974] 1980), “Special Sciences, or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Special Sciences, or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis 28:97–115. Reprinted in Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, N. Block (ed.), vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 120–133.Google Scholar
Gillett, C. (2002), “The Dimensions of Realization: A Critique of the Standard View”, The Dimensions of Realization: A Critique of the Standard View 64 (4): 316–323..Google Scholar
Gillett, C. (2003), “The Metaphysics of Realization, Multiple Realization, and the Special Sciences”, The Metaphysics of Realization, Multiple Realization, and the Special Sciences 100 (11): 591–603..Google Scholar
Heil, J. (1999), “Multiple Realization”, Multiple Realization 36 (3): 189–208..Google Scholar
Kim, J. ([1972] 1980), “Phenomenal Properties, Psychophysical Laws, and Identity Theory”, Monist 56 (2): 177–192.. Excerpted in Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, N. Block (ed.), Vol. 1, under the title, “Physicalism and the Multiple Realizability of Mental States”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 234–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1992), “Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction”, Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction 52:1–16.Google Scholar
Kim, S. (2002), “Testing Multiple Realizability: A Discussion of Bechtel and Mundale”, Testing Multiple Realizability: A Discussion of Bechtel and Mundale 69:606–610.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1982), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, 1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences 93:335–373.Google Scholar
Land, M., and Fernald, R. (1992), “The Evolution of Eyes”, The Evolution of Eyes 15:1–29.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D. ([1969] 1980), “Review of Art, Mind, and Religion”, Journal of Philosophy 66: 23–35. Excerpted in Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, N. Block (ed.), Vol. 1, as “Review of Putnam”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 232–233.Google Scholar
Polger, T. (2002), “Putnam's Intuition”, Putnam's Intuition 109 (2): 143–170..Google Scholar
Polger, T. (2004), Natural Minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polger, T. (2007), “Realization and the Metaphysics of Mind”, Realization and the Metaphysics of Mind 85 (2): 233–259..Google Scholar
Polger, T. (forthcoming), “Realization and Multiple Realization, Chicken and Egg”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. ([1967] 1975), “The Nature of Mental States,” in H. Putnam (ed.), Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. (1979), “Functionalism and Reductionism”, Functionalism and Reductionism 46:533–558.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. (1982), “How Not to Reduce a Functional Psychology”, How Not to Reduce a Functional Psychology 49 (1): 125–137..Google Scholar
Richardson, R. (2008) “Autonomy and Multiple Realization”, Autonomy and Multiple Realization 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1967), “Approaches to Reductionism”, Approaches to Reductionism 34:137–147.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. (2000), “Multiple Realizations”, Multiple Realizations 97:635–654.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. (2004), The Mind Incarnate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. (2008), “How to Test for Multiple Realization”, How to Test for Multiple Realization 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1999), “The Multiple Realization Argument against Reductionism”, The Multiple Realization Argument against Reductionism 66:542–564.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. (2008), “Memory Consolidation, Multiple Realizations, and Modest Reductions”, Memory Consolidation, Multiple Realizations, and Modest Reductions 75, in this issue.Google Scholar