Philosophical Studies

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 683–695 | Cite as

Multiple realizability and the semantic view of theories

Article

Abstract

Multiply realizable properties are those whose realizers are physically diverse. It is often argued that theories which contain them are ipso facto irreducible. These arguments assume that physical explanations are restricted to the most specific descriptions possible of physical entities. This assumption is descriptively false, and philosophically unmotivated. I argue that it is a holdover from the late positivist axiomatic view of theories. A semantic view of theories, by contrast, correctly allows scientific explanations to be couched in the most perspicuous, powerful language available. On a semantic view, traditional notions of multiple realizability are thus very hard to motivate. At best, one must abandon either the idea that multiple realizability is an interesting scientific notion, or else admit that multiply realizable properties do not automatically block scientific reductions.

Keywords

Multiple realizability Semantic view Theories Reduction Models 

References

  1. Aizawa, K., & Gillett, C. (2009). The (multiple) realization of psychological and other properties in the sciences. Mind & Language, 24(2), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailer-Jones, D. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bealer, G. (1994). Mental properties. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(4), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W., & Mundale, J. (1999). Multiple realizability revisited: Linking cognitive and neural states. Philosophy of Science, 66, 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, N. (1997). Anti-reductionism slaps back. In J. Tomberlin (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives: Mind, causation, world. vol 11 (pp. 107–133). Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
  6. Bontly, T. (2005). Proportionality, causation, and exclusion. Philosophia, 32(1), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  9. Frigg, R. (2006). Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria, 55(49–55).Google Scholar
  10. Funkhouser, E. (2007). Multiple realizability. Philosophy Compass, 2(2), 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006). The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, C. (2009). Reduction without reductionism: A defence of Nagel on connectability. The Philosophical Quarterly, 59(234), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. (1970). How to define theoretical terms. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(13), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1986). Causal explanation. In Philosophical papers, vol 2. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lloyd, E. (1994). The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature, 453, 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, H. (1975). Philosophy and our mental life. In Mind, language, and reality (pp. 291–303). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Salmon, W. (1998a). Causality and explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salmon, W. (1998b). Deductivism visited and revisited. In Salmon, W. (Ed.), Causality and explanation (pp. 142–177). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sober, E. (1999). The multiple realizability argument against reduction. Philosophy of Science, 66, 542–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  26. Suppes, P. (1967). What is a scientific theory?. In S. Morgenbesser (Ed.), Philosophy of science today (pp. 55–67). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. van Fraassen, B. (1970). On the extension of beth’s semantics of physical theories. Philosophy of Science, 37(3), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations