Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T00:52:43.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple Realizability from a Causal Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Lauren N. Ross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the multiple realizability thesis within a causal framework. The beginnings of this framework are found in Elliott Sober’s “Multiple Realizability Argument against Reduction,” which argues that the multiple realizability thesis poses no challenge to reductive explanation. While Sober’s causal approach has the potential to reveal new insights, I argue that his setup fails to capture important aspects of the multiple realizability thesis. After correcting for these issues, I argue that this causal framework reveals something quite different. It reveals how multiple realizability relates to a common type of causal complexity in biology that poses problems for reductive explanation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 640 - 662
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

†

I would like to thank Elliott Sober for helpful feedback on this article.

References

Batterman, R. W. 2002. The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. W.. 2018. “Autonomy of Theories: An Explanatory Problem.” Noûs 52:858–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Mundale, J.. 1999. “Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States.” Philosophy of Science 66:175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betancur, C. 2011. “Etiological Heterogeneity in Autism Spectrum Disorders: More than 100 Genetic and Genomic Disorders and Still Counting.” Brain Research 1380:42–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burbulla, L. F., and Krüger.”, R. 2011. “Converging Environmental and Genetic Pathways in the Pathogenesis of Parkinson’s Disease.” Journal of the Neurological Sciences 306 (1–2): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, J. 2011a. “Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 920–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J.. 2011b. “Laws, Causation and Dynamics at Different Levels.” Interface Focus 2 (1): 101–14..Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. 2007. Explaining the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L., and Maull, N.. 1977. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. R. 2017. “Novel 25 kb Deletion of MERTK Causes Retinitis Pigmentosa with Severe Progression.” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 58:1736–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A. 1968. Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A.. 1974. “Special Sciences; or, The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis.” Synthese 28:97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.. 1997. “Special Sciences: Still Autonomous after All These Years.” Philosophical Perspectives 11:149–63.Google Scholar
Gandy, S. 2005. “The Role of Cerebral Amyloid β Accumulation in Common Forms of Alzheimer Disease.” Journal of Clinical Investigation 115 (5): 1121–29..Google ScholarPubMed
Hume, D. 1738. A Treatise of Human Nature. Bk. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, B. L. 2000. “Shocking Lessons from Electric Fish: The Theory and Practice of Multiple Realization.” Philosophy of Science 67:444–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendler, K. S. 2012. “Levels of Explanation in Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for the Development of an Etiologically Based Nosology.” Molecular Psychiatry 17 (1): 1–11..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, K. S.. 2013. “What Psychiatric Genetics Has Taught Us about the Nature of Psychiatric Illness and What Is Left to Learn.” Molecular Psychiatry 18 (10): 1058–66..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennan, A., Aherne, A., and Humphries, P.. 2005. “Light in Retinitis Pigmentosa.” Trends in Genetics 21 (2): 103–10..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lombrozo, T., and Pacer, M.. 2017. “Ockham’s Razor Cuts to the Root: Simplicity in Causal Explanation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146:1761–80.Google Scholar
Polger, T. W.. and Shapiro, L. A.. 2016. The Multiple Realization Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1967. “Psychological Predicates.” In Art, Mind, and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H.. 1975. Philosophy and Our Mental Life. Vol. 2 of Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raerinne, J. 2017. “Explanations of Exceptions in Biology: Corrective Asymmetry versus Autonomy.” Synthese 194 (12): 5073–92..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. C. 2008. “Autonomy and Multiple Realization.” Philosophy of Science 75 (5): 526–36..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L. N. 2015. “Dynamical Models and Explanation in Neuroscience.” Philosophy of Science 82 (1): 32–54..Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. 2007. “Theories, Models, and Equations in Systems Biology.” Systems Biology 1:145–62.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. 2000. “Multiple Realizations.” Journal of Philosophy 97:635–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1999. “The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 66:542–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uher, R., and Zwicker, A.. 2017. “Etiology in Psychiatry: Embracing the Reality of Poly-Gene Environmental Causation of Mental Illness.” World Psychiatry 16 (2): 121–29..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Utts, J. M., and Heckard, R. F.. 2007. Mind on Statistics. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. 1900. “Why the Anti-Reductionist Consensus Won’t Survive: The Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics.” Philosophy of Science 1:125–39.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1976a. “Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem.” In Brain and Consciousness: Scientific and Philosophical Strategies, 205–67. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C.. 1976b. “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account.” In PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Cohen, R. S. et al., 671–710. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J.. 2010. “Causation in Biology: Stability, Specificity, and the Choice of Levels of Explanation.” Biology and Philosophy 25 (3): 287–318..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J.. 2014. “A Functional Account of Causation; or, A Defense of the Legitimacy of Causal Thinking by Reference to the Only Standard That Matters—Usefulness (as Opposed to Metaphysics or Agreement with Intuitive Judgment). Philosophy of Science 81:691–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablo, S. 1992. “Mental Causation.” Philosophical Review 101:245–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, P., and Kuorikoski, J.. 2010. “Dissecting Explanatory Power.” Philosophical Studies 148 (2): 201–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar