Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-21T13:49:54.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Multiple Realizability Argument Against Reductionism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Elliott Sober
Elliott Sober*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reductionism is often understood to include two theses: (1) every singular occurrence that the special sciences can explain also can be explained by physics; (2) every law in a higher-level science can be explained by physics. These claims are widely supposed to have been refuted by the multiple realizability argument, formulated by Putnam (1967, 1975) and Fodor (1968, 1975). The present paper criticizes the argument and identifies a reductionistic thesis that follows from one of the argument's premises.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 542 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, 5185 Helen C. White Hall, Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

‡

My thanks to Martin Barrett, John Beatty, Tom Bontly, Ellery Eells, Berent Enç, Branden Fitelson, Jerry Fodor, Martha Gibson, Daniel Hausman, Dale Jamieson, Andrew Levine, Brian Mclaughlin, Terry Penner, Larry Shapiro, Chris Stephens, Richard Teng, Ken Waters, Ann Wolfe, and an anonymous referee for this journal for comments on earlier drafts.

References

Berlin, Isaiah (1953), The Hedgehog and the Fox. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Bickle, John (1998), Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul (1982), “Is ‘Thinker’ a Natural Kind?”, Dialogue 21: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald (1966), “Emeroses by Other Names”, Journal of Philosophy 63: 778–780. Reprinted in Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, 225–227.10.2307/2023808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (1970), “Mental Events”, in Foster, L. and Swanson, J. (eds.), Experience and Theory. London: Duckworth. Reprinted in Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, 207–225.Google Scholar
Earman, John (1992), Bayes or Bust?: A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enç, Berent (1983), “In Defense of the Identity Theory”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1968), Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. (1975), The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Crowell.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. (1998), “Special Sciences—Still Autonomous After All These Years”, in In Critical Condition: Polemical Essays on Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forster, Malcolm and Sober, Elliott (1994), “How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson (1965), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. Russell (1958), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl (1965), “Aspects of Scientific Explanation”, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Howson, Colin and Urbach, Peter (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1989), “The Myth of Nonreductive Materialism”, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 63: 31–47. Reprinted in Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sungsu (unpublished), “Physicalism, Supervenience, and Causation—a Probabilistic Approach”.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, Philosophical Review 93: 335–373. Reprinted in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994, 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1969), “Review of Art, Mind, and Religion”, Journal of Philosophy 66: 22–27. Reprinted in N. Block (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983, 232–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. (1973a), “Causation”, Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–567. Reprinted with a “Postscript” in D. Lewis, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 159–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. (1973b), Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revised edition 1986.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1986), “Causal Explanation”, in D. Lewis, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 214–240.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt Brace.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas (1965), “Physicalism”, Philosophical Review 74: 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul, and Putnam, Hilary (1958), “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, in Feigl, H., Maxwell, G., and Scriven, M. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–36.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. Reprinted as “The Nature of Mental States” in Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, 429–440.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1975), “Philosophy and our Mental Life”, in Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1978), “The Supervenience of Biological Concepts”, Philosophy of Science 45: 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1983), “Equilibrium Explanation”, Philosophical Studies 43: 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. (1984), The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. (1988), “Confirmation and Lawlikeness”, Philosophical Review 97: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. (1994), “Contrastive Empiricism”, in From a Biological Point of View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. (1998), “Black Box Inference: When Should an Intervening Variable be Postulated?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 469–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. (1999), “Physicalism from a Probabilistic Point of View”, Philosophical Studies 95: 135–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott and Wilson, David S. (1998), Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert (1968), “A Theory of Conditionals”, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112.Google Scholar
Waters, Kenneth (1990), “Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics”, PSA 1990. E. Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 125–139. Reprinted in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994, 402–417.Google Scholar