Psychology and Neuroscience: The Distinctness Question

Erkenntnis:1-20 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In a recent paper, Gualtiero Piccinini and Carl Craver have argued that psychology is not distinct from neuroscience. Many have argued that Piccinini and Craver’s argument is unsuccessful. However, none of these authors have questioned the appropriateness of Piccinini and Craver’s argument for their key premise—that functional analyses are mechanism sketches. My first and main goal in this paper is to show that Piccinini and Craver offer normative considerations in support of what is a descriptive premise and to provide some guidelines on how to argue for this premise. My second goal is to show that the distinctness question should be of great significance for philosophy of cognitive science.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-10-14
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
41 ( #52,758 of 58,397 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #33,883 of 58,397 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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