In one of their arguments against the radical neuron doctrine,
Gold & Stoljar (G&S) use the idea that, in certain situations,
equivalent terms may not be substitutable into statements that regard
properties of the objects to which the terms refer. This device allows
G&S to refute the necessity of the conclusion that “the
science of the mind equals the science of the brain” even though
they take as a premise that the mind equals the brain. I argue, however,
that this practice leaves the meaning of the “science of the
mind” and the “science of the brain” indeterminate.