Realism, Nominalism, and Biological Naturalism

International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (1):85-102 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Biological naturalism claims that all psychological phenomena can be causally, though not ontologically, reduced to neurological processes, where causal reduction is usually understood in terms of supervenience. After presenting John Searle’s version of biological naturalism in some detail, I argue that the particular supervenience relation on which this account depends is dubious. Specifically, the fact that either realism or nominalism is the case implies that there is one fact about belief that does not supervene on neurophysiological processes. Biological naturalism is thereby defeated because it cannot account for belief. Ialso address three likely objections to this argument



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,148

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Realism, Biologism and 'the Background'.Matthew Ratcliffe - 2004 - Philosophical Explorations 7 (2):149 – 166.
Biological Naturalism.John R. Searle - 2007 - In Max Velmans & Susan Schneider (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness. Blackwell.
Naturalism and Abstract Entities.Feng Ye - 2010 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):129-146.
Mental Causation in Searle’s “Biological Naturalism”.Jaegwon Kim - 1995 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55 (1):189-194.
Naturalism, Theism, Obligation and Supervenience.Alvin Plantinga - 2010 - Faith and Philosophy 27 (3):247-272.
Population Thinking as Trope Nominalism.Bence Nanay - 2010 - Synthese 177 (1):91 - 109.
Naturalism and Ontology.Penelope Maddy - 1995 - Philosophia Mathematica 3 (3):248-270.


Added to PP

70 (#169,337)

6 months
8 (#95,856)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references