Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T05:29:19.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstraction and Explanatory Relevance; or, Why Do the Special Sciences Exist?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Matthew C. Haug
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nonreductive physicalists have long used multiple realizability to argue for the explanatory “autonomy” of the special sciences. Recently, in the face of the local reduction and disjunctive property responses to multiple realizability, some defenders of nonreductive physicalism have suggested that autonomy can be grounded merely in human cognitive limitations. In this article, I argue that this is mistaken. By distinguishing between two kinds of abstraction I show that the greater explanatory relevance of some special-science predicates (to certain explananda) is both nonanthropocentric and not solely based on considerations of multiple realizability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1143 - 1155
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 Paul S. Davies for comments on an earlier draft and to the audience at the PSA 2010 meeting for helpful questions and discussion. I am also grateful for financial support provided by a Scholar's Award from the National Science Foundation (grant SES-0957221), a William & Mary Faculty Summer Research grant, and a Faculty International Conference Travel grant from the Reves Center at William & Mary.

References

Allen, Colin. 2004. “Animal Pain.” Nous 38:617–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, Louise. 1999. “Multiple Realizability, Projectibility, and the Reality of Mental Properties.” Philosophical Topics 26:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, Lenny. 2001. “Disjunctive Properties: Multiple Realizations.” Journal of Philosophy 98:111–36.Google Scholar
Coghill, Robert C., Sang, Christine N., Maisog, Jose M. A., and Iadarola, Michael J.. 1999. “Pain Intensity Processing within the Human Brain: A Bilateral, Distributed Mechanism.” Journal of Neurophysiology 82:1934–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, Jerry. 1974. “Special Sciences.” Synthese 28:97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasper, Philip. 1992. “Reduction and Instrumentalism in Genetics.” Philosophy of Science 59:655–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, Matthew C. 2010. “Realization, Determination, and Mechanisms.” Philosophical Studies 150:313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, Matthew C.. 2011. “Natural Properties and the Special Sciences: Non-reductive Physicalism without Levels of Reality or Multiple Realizability.” Monist 92:247–70.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1998. Mind in a Physical World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1999. “Making Sense of Emergence.” Philosophical Studies 95:3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1984. “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences.” Philosophical Review 93:335–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1994. “Reduction of Mind.” In A Companion to Philosophy of Mind, ed. Guttenplan, Samuel, 412–31. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Menzies, Peter. 1988. “Against Causal Reductionism.” Mind 97:551–74.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. “Philosophy and Our Mental Life.” In Mind, Language and Reality, 291–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, Sydney. 2007. Physical Realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1999. “The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism.” Philosophy of Science 66:542–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar