Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T04:19:32.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functionalism and Reductionism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert C. Richardson
Robert C. Richardson*
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is here argued that functionalist constraints on psychology do not preclude the applicability of classic forms of reduction and, therefore, do not support claims to a principled, or de jure, autonomy of psychology. In Part I, after isolating one minimal restriction any functionalist theory must impose on its categories, it is shown that any functionalism imposing an additional constraint of de facto autonomy must also be committed to a pure functionalist—that is, a computationalist—model for psychology. Using an extended parallel to the reduction of Mendelian to molecular genetics, it is shown in Parts II and III that, contrary to the claims of Hilary Putnam and Jerry Fodor, there is no inconsistency between computational models and classical reductionism: neither plurality of physical realization nor plurality of function are inconsistent with reductionism as defended by Ernest Nagel. Employing the results of Part I, the conclusions of Parts II and III are generalized in Part IV to cover any version of functionalism whatsoever; thus, functionalism and reductionism are shown to be consistent. It is urged in conclusion that although a de facto form of autonomy is defensible, there are sound methodological grounds for unconditionally rejecting any principled version of the autonomy of psychology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1979 , pp. 533 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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.)

References

Block, N. and Fodor, J. (1972), “What Psychological States Are Not.” The Philosophical Review 81: 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1968), Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975), The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1974), “Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis).” Syntheses 28: (1974), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1972), “Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?.” Philosophy of Science, 39: 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. (1973), “Language and Thought” In George A. Miller. Communication, Language and Meaning. New York: Basic Books, 172–184.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1963), “Steps Toward Artificial Intelligence.” In E. A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman (eds.). Computers and Thought. New York: McGraw-Hill, 406–450.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neisser, U. (1967), Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P. and Putnam, H. (1958), “The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis.” In H. Feigl, G. Maxwell, and M. Scriven(eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume III. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–36.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975a), Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975b), “How Not to Talk About Meaning,” in H. Putnam (1975a): 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975c), “Robots: machines or artificially created life?”, in H. Putnam (1975a): 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975d), “Minds and Machines,” in H. Putnam (1975a): 362–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975e), “Philosophy and Our Mental Life,” in H. Putnam (1975a): 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975f), “The Mental Life of Some Machines,” in H. Putnam (1975a): 408–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975g), “The Nature of Mental States,” in H. Putnam (1975a): 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1967), “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34: 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1976), “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism.” In Marjorie Grene and Everett Mendelsohn (eds.). Topics in the Philosophy of Biology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938), The Behavior of Organisms. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1972), “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3: 1–80.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1976), “Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem.” In G. Globus, G. Maxwell, and I. Savodnik (eds.). Brain and Consciousness. New York: Plenum Press, 199–267.Google Scholar