Two Confusions Concerning Multiple Realization
- 1 December 2008
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Philosophy of Science
- Vol. 75 (5) , 537-547
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.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- The nature of mental states2010
- Neuroscience and multiple realization: a reply to Bechtel and MundaleSynthese, 2008
- Realization and the metaphysics of mind1Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2007
- The Biochemistry of Memory Consolidation: A Model System for the Philosophy of MindSynthese, 2007
- Molecular neuroscience to my rescue (again): Reply to looren de jong & schoutenPhilosophical Psychology, 2005
- Natural Minds2004
- Philosophy and Neuroscience2003
- Psychoneural Reduction1998
- Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis)Synthese, 1974
- Phenomenal Properties, Psychophysical Laws, and the Identity TheoryThe Monist, 1972