Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-znhjv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-27T02:42:15.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy and Multiple Realization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Robert C. Richardson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multiple realization historically mandated the autonomy of psychology, and its principled irreducibility to neuroscience. Recently, multiple realization and its implications for the reducibility of psychology to neuroscience have been challenged. One challenge concerns the proper understanding of reduction. Another concerns whether multiple realization is as pervasive as is alleged. I focus on the latter question. I illustrate multiple realization with actual, rather than hypothetical, cases of multiple realization from within the biological sciences. Though they do support a degree of autonomy for higher levels of explanation and organization, they do not have the dire consequences critics of multiple realization fear.

Information

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. 526 - 536
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bechtel, W., and Mundale, J. (1999), “Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States”, Multiple Realizability 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
Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F., Richardson, R. C., Stephan, A., and Westerhof, H. (2005), “Emergence and Its Place in Nature”, Emergence and Its Place in Nature 145:135–164.Google Scholar
Burian, R. (2005), The Epistemology of Development, Evolution, and Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couch, M. B. (2005), “Functional Properties and Convergence in Biology”, Functional Properties and Convergence in Biology 72:1041–1051.Google Scholar
Fernald, R. D. (2006), “Casting a Genetic Light on the Evolution of Eyes”, Science 313:1914–1922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. (1974), “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.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1997), “Special Sciences: Still Autonomous after All These Years”, Special Sciences: Still Autonomous after All These Years 11:149–163.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1972), “Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?”, Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy? 39:491–499.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Polger, T. (2004), Natural Minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967), “The Nature of Mental States” (originally “Psychological Predicates”), in W. Capitain and D. Merrill (eds.), Art, Mind and Religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 429–440.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. C. (1979), “Functionalism and Reductionism”, Functionalism and Reductionism 46:533–558.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1974), “Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems”, in Cohen, R. S., Hooker, C. A., Michalos, A. C., and van Evra, J. W. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 613–632.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. A. (2000), “Multiple Realization”, Multiple Realization 97:635–664.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. A. (2004), The Mind Incarnate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. A. (2005), “Can Psychology Be a Unified Science?”, Can Psychology Be a Unified Science? 72:953–963Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1999), “The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism”, The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism 66:542–564.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1975), “Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem”, in Globus, G., Maxwell, G., and Savodnik, I. (eds.), Consciousness and the Brain. New York: Plenum, 205–267.Google Scholar