Discussion: A defense of Bechtel and Mundale

Philosophy of Science 71 (2):198-204 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Kim claims that Bechtel and Mundale's case against multiple realization depends on the wrong kind of evidence. The latter argue that neuroscientific practice shows neural states across individuals and species are type identical. Kim replies that the evidence they cite to support this is irrelevant. I defend Bechtel and Mundale by showing why the evidence they cite is relevant and shows multiple realization does not occur.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
133 (#131,321)

6 months
7 (#243,727)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Multiple realizability.John Bickle - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Content internalism and conceptual engineering.Joey Pollock - 2020 - Synthese 198 (12):11587-11605.
Two Confusions Concerning Multiple Realization.Thomas W. Polger - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (5):537-547.
Multiple realization in comparative perspective.Mark B. Couch - 2009 - Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):505-519.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Psychological predicates.Hilary Putnam - 1967 - In William H. Capitan & Daniel Davy Merrill (eds.), Art, mind, and religion. [Pittsburgh]: University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 37--48.
Nonreductive materialism and the explanatory autonomy of psychology.Terence E. Horgan - 1993 - In Steven J. Wagner & Richard Warner (eds.), Naturalism: A Critical Appraisal. University of Notre Dame Press.

Add more references