Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:28.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: A Defense of Bechtel and Mundale∗

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mark B. Couch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kim claims that Bechtel and Mundale's case against multiple realization depends on the wrong kind of evidence. The latter argue that neuroscientific practice shows neural states across individuals and species are type identical. Kim replies that the evidence they cite to support this is irrelevant. I defend Bechtel and Mundale by showing why the evidence they cite is relevant and shows multiple realization does not occur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 198 - 204
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

‡

Thanks to Philip Kitcher and two anonymous referees for help with this paper.

References

Allen, Colin, and Bekoff, Marc (1997), Species of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
Block, Ned, and Fodor, Jerry A. (1972), “What Psychological States Are Not”, What Psychological States Are Not 81:159–181.Google Scholar
Donoghue, Michael J. (1992), “Homology”, in Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 170–179.Google Scholar
Hecht, Max K., and Edwards, James L. (1977), “The Methodology of Phylogenetic Inference Above the Species Level”, in Hecht, Max K., Goody, Peter C., and Hecht, Bessie M. (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. New York: Plenum, 3–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, Terence (1993), “Nonreductive Materialism and the Explanatory Autonomy of Psychology”, in Wagner, Steven J. and Warner, Richard (eds.), Naturalism: A Critical Appraisal. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 295–320.Google Scholar
Kent, George C. (1992), Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates. St. Louis: Mosby.Google Scholar
Kim, Sungsu (2002), “Testing Multiple Realizability: A Discussion of Bechtel and Mundale”, Testing Multiple Realizability: A Discussion of Bechtel and Mundale 69:606–610.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Messenger, J. B. (1981), “Comparative Physiology of Vision in Molluscs”, in Autrum, H. (ed.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology, VII/6C. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 93–200.Google Scholar
Patterson, Colin (1982), “Morphological Characters and Homology”, in Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. London: Academic Press, 21–74.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1967), “Psychological Predicates”, in Capitan, W. and Merrill, D. (eds.), Art, Mind and Religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 37–48.Google Scholar