Abstract
I contrast Bickle's new wave reductionismwith other relevant views about explanation across intertheoretic contexts. I then assess Bickle's empirical argument for psychoneural reduction. Bickle shows that psychology is not autonomous from neuroscience, and concludes that at least some versions of nonreductive physicalism are false. I argue this is not sufficient to establish his further claim that psychology reduces to neuroscience. Examination of Bickle's explanations reveals that they do not meet his own reductive standard. Furthermore, there are good empirical reasons to doubt that the cognitive approach to mind should be abandoned. I suggest that the near future will not see a reduction of psychology to neuroscience, so much as a replacement of both sciences by an improved form of neuropsychology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bickle, J. 2003. Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carnap, R. 1956. Empiricism, semantics, ontology [1950]. Reprinted in R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity, 2nd. Ed. (pp. 205–221). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chakravartty, A. 2001. The semantic or model-theoretic view of theories and scientific realism. Synthese 127(3): 325–345.
Duncan, J. and Owen, A. 2000. Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends in Neuroscience 23(10): 475–483.
Feyerabend, P. K. 1962. Explanation, reduction, and empiricism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v.3. Reprinted in P. K. Feyerabend (ed.), Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1 (pp. 44–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giere, R. 1999. Science Without Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kim, J. 1998. Mind in a Physical World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCauley, R. 1986. Intertheoretic relations and the future of psychology. Philosophy of Science 53: 179–199.
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Roskies, A. 1999, The binding problem. Neuron 24: 7–9.
Suppes, P. 1965. What is a scientific theory? In: S. Morganbesser (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today. New York: Basic Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neisser, J.U. The shape of things to come: Psychoneural reduction and the future of psychology. Phenom Cogn Sci 4, 259–269 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-4070-6
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-4070-6