Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:41:29.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduction, Explanatory Extension, and the Mind/Brain Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Valerie Gray Hardcastle
Valerie Gray Hardcastle*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In trying to characterize the relationship between psychology and neuroscience, the trend has been to argue that reductionism does not work without suggesting a suitable substitute. I offer explanatory extension as a good model for elucidating the complex relationship among disciplines which are obviously connected but which do not share pragmatic explanatory features. Explanatory extension rests on the idea that one field can “illuminate” issues that were incompletely treated in another. In this paper, I explain how this “illumination” would work between psychology and neuroscience.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 408 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by 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 would like to thank Patricia Churchland, Todd Jones, Sandra Mitchell, and Adina Roskies for their conversations. I also owe a debt of gratitude to two anonymous referees who gave very detailed and helpful comments. Finally, I would especially like to thank Patricia and Philip Kitcher for their patient readings of several drafts of this paper and their insightful criticisms of my thoughts on reductionism, explanatory extension, and all that.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061–0126, USA.

References

Bachevalier, J. and Mishkin, M. (1984), “An Early and a Late Developing System for Learning and Retention in Infant Monkeys”, Behavioral Neuroscience 98: 770–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (1982), “Two Common Errors in Explaining Biological and Psychological Phenomena”, Philosophy of Science 49: 549–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (1983), “A Bridge Between Cognitive Science and Neuroscience: The Functional Architecture of Mind”, Philosophical Studies 44: 319–330.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. and Kim, J. (1967), “The Logic of the Identity Theory”, Journal of Philosophy 64(9): 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, S. (1966), “Why-Questions”, in Colodny, R. G. (ed.), Mind and Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 86–108.Google Scholar
Butters, N.; Pandya, D. N.; Stein, D.; and Rosen, J. (1972), “A Search for the Spatial Engram Within the Frontal Lobes of Monkeys”, Acta Neurobiologica 32: 305–329.Google ScholarPubMed
Churchland, P. M. (1984), Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1986), Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culp, S. and Kitcher, P. (1989), “Theory Structure and Theory Change in Contemporary Molecular Biology”, Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. and Maull, N. (1977), “Interfield Theories”, Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1987), “Three Kinds of Intentional Psychology”, The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
Enç, B. (1983), “In Defense of the Identity Theory”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. ([1974] 1983), “Special Science”. Reprinted in J. Fodor Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 127–145. (Originally published in Synthese 28: 77–115.)Google Scholar
Fodor, J. ([1978] 1983), “Computation and Reduction”. Reprinted in J. Fodor Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 146–174.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis”, Cognition 28: 3–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuster, G. M. and Alexander, G. E. (1971), “Neuron Activity Related to Short Term Memory”, Science 173: 652–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuster, J. (1973), “Unit Activity in Prefrontal Cortex During Delayed-Response Performance: Neuronal Correlates of Transient Memory”, Journal of Neurophysiology 36: 61–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuster, J. (1980), The Prefrontal Cortex: Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, P. S. (1971), “Functional Development of the Prefrontal Cortex in Early Life and the Problem of Neuronal Plasticity”, Experimental Neurology 32: 366–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, P. S. and Rosvold, H. E. (1970), “Localization of Function within the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex of the Rhesus Monkey”, Experimental Neurology 207: 29–304.Google Scholar
Goldman, P. S.; Rosvold, H. E.; Vest, B.; and Galkin, T. W. (1971), “Analysis of the Delayed Alternation Deficit Produced by Dorsolateral Prefrontal Lesions in the Rhesus Monkey”, Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 77: 212–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987), “Circuitry of Primate Prefrontal Cortex and the Regulation of Behavior by Representational Knowledge”, in Plum, F. and Mountcastle, V. (eds.), Handbook of Physiology—The Nervous System, vol. 5. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society, pp. 373–417.Google Scholar
Goldman-Rakic, P.; Isseroff, I.; Schwartz, M.; and Bugbee, N. (1983), “The Neurobiology of Cognitive Development”, in Plum, F. and Mountcastle, V. (eds.), The Handbook of Child Development. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society, pp. 282–331.Google Scholar
Gross, C. G. and Weiskrantz, L. (1964), “Some Changes in Behavior Produced by Lateral Frontal Lesions in the Macaque”, in Warren, J. M. and Akert, K. (eds.), The Frontal Granular Cortex and Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 74–101.Google Scholar
Haefely, W.; Polc, P.; Pieri, L.; Schaffner, R.; and Laurent, J. P. (1983), “Neuropharmacology and Benzodiazepines: Synaptic Mechanisms and Neural Basis of Action”, in Costa, E. (ed.), The Benzodiazepines: From Molecular Biology to Clinical Practice. New York: Raven Press, pp. 21–66.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, V. G. (forthcoming), “Evolutionary Epistemology as an Overlapping, Inter-level Theory”, Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Harlow, H. F.; Davis, R. T.; Settlage, P. H.; and Meyer, D. R. (1952), “Analysis of Frontal and Posterier Association Syndromes in Brain Damaged Monkeys”, Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 45: 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, G. (1988), “Neuro-philosophy Meets Psychology: Reduction, Autonomy, and Physiological Constraints”, Cognitive Neuropsychology 5,6: 723–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hubel, D. and Weisel, T. (1977), “The Functional Architecture of Macaque Monkey Visual Cortex”, Proceedings for the Royal Society of London, Series B 198: 1–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Iversen, S. D. (ed.), (1985), Psychopharmacology: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1967), “On Reduction”, in Brody, B. (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 307–318.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. S. (1984), “1953 and All That. A Tale of Two Sciences”, The Philosophical Review 93: 335–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, P. S. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, P. S. and Salmon, W. (eds.), Scientific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 13. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. S. and Salmon, W. (1987), “Van Fraassen on Explanation”, Journal of Philosophy 84: 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. W. (1980), “How to Reduce a Functional Psychology?”, Philosophy of Science 47: 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kojima, S. and Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1982), “Delayed-Related Activity of Prefrontal Cortical Neurons in Rhesus Monkeys Performain Delayed Response”, Brain Research 248: 43–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kojima, S. and Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1984), “Functional Analysis of Spatially Discrimitive Neurons in Prefrontal Cortex of Rhesus Monkey”, Brain Research 291: 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubota, K. and Niki, (1971), “Prefrontal Cortical Unit Activity and Delayed Alternation Performance in Monkeys”, Journal of Neurophysiology 34: 337–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, G. (1984), Mind and Body: Psychology of Emotion and Stress. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. (1984), “Representation and Recall in Infancy”, in Moscovitch, M. (ed.), Infant Memory: Its Relation to Normal and Pathological Memory in Humans and Other Animals. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982), Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Maull, N. (1977), “Unifying Science Without Reduction”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 8: 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. H.; Barlow, H. F. and Settlate, P. H. (1951), “A Survey of Delayed Response Performance by Normal and Brain-Damaged Monkeys”, Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 44: 17–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishkin, M. (1957), “Effects of Small Frontal Lesions on Delayed Alternation in Monkeys”, Journal of Neurophysiology 20: 615–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passingham, R. (1975), “Delayed Matching After Selective Prefrontal Lesions in Monkeys (macaco mulatta)”, Brain Research 92: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, J. D. and Konishi, M. (1976), “Neurons Selective for Orientation and Binocular Disparity in the Visual Wulst of the Barn Owl (tyto alba)”, Science 193: 675–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1962), “Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge”, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, pp. 215–250.Google Scholar
Pribram, K. H. and Mishkin, M. (1956), “Analysis of the Effects of Frontal Lesions in Monkey. III. Object Alternation”, Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 49: 41–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pribram, K. H.; Mishkin, M.; Rosvold, H. E.; and Kaplan, S. J., (1952), “Effects on Delayed-Response Performance of Lesions of Dorso-Lateral and Ventro-Lateral Frontal Cortex of Baboons”, Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 45: 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. ([1973] 1983), “Reductionism and the Nature of Psychology”. Reprinted in abridged form in J. Haugland (ed.), Mind Design: Philosophy, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 205–219. (Originally published in Cognition 2: 131–146.)Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. (1980), “Computation and Cognition: Issues in the Foundation of Cognitive Science”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. (1984), Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (1981), “Probability, Explanation, and Information”, Synthese 48: 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. (1988), “Perceiving Shape From Shading”, Scientific American 259: 76–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, R. C. (1979), “Functionalism and Reductionism”, Philosophy of Science 46: 533–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. C. (1982), “How Not to Reduce a Functional Psychology”, Philosophy of Science 49: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosvold, H. E.; Szwarcbart, M. K.; Mirsky, A. F.; and Mishkin, M. (1961), “The Effect of Frontal-Lobe Damage on Delayed-Response Performance in Chimpanzees”, Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 54: 368–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salmon, W. (1971), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, S. (1964), “The Interaction of Cognitive and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State”, in Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, pp. 8–49.Google Scholar
Schachter, S. (1965), “A Cognitive-Physiological View of Emotion”, in Klineberg, O. and Christie, R. (eds.), Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, pp. 75–105.Google Scholar
Schachter, S. and Singer, J. (1962), “Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State”, Psychological Review 65: 121–128.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1967), “Approaches to Reduction”, Philosophy of Science 34: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1980), “Theory Structure in the Biomedical Sciences”, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 5: 57–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sejnowski, T. J. and Lekhy, S. R. (1988), “Network Model of Shape-From-Shading: Neural Function Arises From Both Receptive and Projective Fields”, Nature 333: 452–454.Google Scholar
Strongman, K. (1987), The Psychology of Emotion. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1976), “Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem”, in Globus, G., Maxwell, G., and Savodnik, I. (eds.), Consciousness and the Brain: A Scientific and Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 199–267.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1896), Grundriss der Psychologie. Leipzig: Englemann.Google Scholar