Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T23:11:27.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mental Anomaly and the New Mind-Brain Reductionism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Bickle
John Bickle*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of Mississippi
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Trenton State College, Hillwood Lakes CN–4700, Trenton, NJ 08650-4700, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Davidson's principle of the anomalousness of the mental was instrumental in discrediting once-popular versions of mind-brain reductionism. In this essay I argue that a novel account of intertheoretic reduction, which does not require the sort of cross-theoretic bridge laws that Davidson's principle rules out, allows a version of mind-brain reductionism which is immune from Davidson's challenge. In the final section, I address a second worry about reductionism, also based on Davidson's principle, that survives this response. I argue that new reductionists should revise some significant details of the program, particularly the conception of theories, to circumvent this more potent Davidson-inspired worry.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 217 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

An earlier draft of this essay was presented at the Mid-South Philosophy Conference in April 1990. I thank participants for helpful comments and discussion. Special thanks are extended to Brad Petrie, who commented on the paper at the conference, and to David Henderson and Terence Horgan, who offered written comments on the earlier draft.

References

Bickle, J. (1991), “Contemporary Reflections on the Mind-Body Problem”, in Pojman, L., (ed.), L. Pojman, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 333–341.Google Scholar
Bickle, J. (forthcoming), “Epistemology Neuralized: A Critical Notice of Paul Churchland's A Neurocomputational Perspective”, Behavior and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. (1988), “Is a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain Possible?”, Biology and Philosophy 3: 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1988), Matter and Consciousness. Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. ([1985] 1989), “Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of Brain States”. Reprinted in P. M. Churchland, A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 47–66. (Originally published in Journal of Philosophy 82: 8–28.)Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. ([1988] 1989), “Folk Psychology and the Explanation of Human Behavior”. Reprinted in P. M. Churchland, A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–127. (Originally published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. 62: 209–221.)Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1989a), A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1989b), “On the Nature of Theories: A Neurocomputational Perspective”, in P. M. Churchland, A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 153–196. (Originally published in C. W. Savage [ed.], Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 14, The Nature of Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.)Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1986), Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. ([1970] 1980), “Mental Events”. Reprinted in D. Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 207–225.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. ([1973] 1980), “The Material Mind”. Reprinted in D. Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–259.Google Scholar
Enç, B. (1983), “In Defense of the Identity Theory”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974), “Special Sciences”, Synthese 28: 77–115.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1981), “Towards a General Theory of Reduction”, Dialogue 20: 38–59, 201–236, 496–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1989), “The Myth of Nonreductive Materialism”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 63/3: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, K. and Brittan, G. (1987), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. 3rd ed. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. and Wilson, T. (1977), “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”, Psychological Review 84: 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1965), “Psychological Predicates”, in Capitan, W. H. and Merrill, D. D. (eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar