Premium
Special Sciences: still a flawed argument after all these years
Author(s) -
Jones Todd Edwin
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
cognitive science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.498
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 1551-6709
pISSN - 0364-0213
DOI - 10.1207/s15516709cog2803_5
Subject(s) - physicalism , reductionism , epistemology , argument (complex analysis) , philosophy , autonomy , law , political science , metaphysics , chemistry , biochemistry
Jerry Fodor has argued that the multiple realizability argument, as discussed in his original “Special Sciences” article, “refutes psychophysical reductionism once and for all.” I argue that his argument in “Special Sciences” does no such thing. Furthermore, if one endorses the physicalism that most supporters of the “Special Sciences” view endorse, special science laws must be reducible, in principle. The compatibility of MR with reduction, however, need not threaten the autonomy of the special sciences.