Multiple realization and methodology

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
An increasing number of writers (for example, Kim ((1992), (1999)), Bechtel and Mundale (1999), Keeley (2000), Bickle (2003), Polger (2004), and Shapiro ((2000), (2004))) have attacked the existence of multiple realization and wider views of the special sciences built upon it. We examine the two most important arguments against multiple realization and show that neither is successful. Furthermore, we also defend an alternative, positive view of the ontology, and methodology, of the special science. In contrast to the claims of recent critics, we show that methodological connections between the neurosciences and psychology are plausibly often the result of multiple realization.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
PhilPapers/Archive ID
AIZMRA-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-09-22
View other versions
Added to PP index
2009-10-30

Total views
220 ( #24,920 of 58,351 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #54,595 of 58,351 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.