CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 483Philosophy and Theoretical SciencePhilosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationEmbodied and Extended Cognition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States

Open access
Bechtel, William, Mundale, Jennifer·1999·Philosophy of Science
DOI 10.1086/392683
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The contention that psychological states are multiply realizable in different substrates has been used to support the contention that neuroscience is not likely to be very useful in guiding an understanding how cognition works. But in the context of scientific research, how seriously should we really take this threat of multiple realizability? By examining how brain areas are identified in neuroscience (where the approach is comparative and employs functional criteria), we show that the skepticism about neuroscience's role in understanding cognition is misguided and that the apparent success of multiple realizability is based on methodological error. With respect to the former point, we develop and analyze a representative case in which the organization of the brain provides crucial information about the organization of the cognitive system. Then we show that the initial plausibility of claims to multiple realizability rest on (a) mismatching a broad-grained criterion (to show sameness of psychological states) with a finegrained criterion (to differentiate brain states), and (b) a failure to attend to the purposes for which taxonomies of brain and psychological states are developed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/392683

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bechtel, Epistemology and Biology
  2. Marr, 1982, Vision
  3. Broca, 1861, Remarque sur le Siêge de la Faculté Suivies d'une Observation d' Aphémie, Bulletins de la Société Anatomique de Paris, 6, 343
  4. Henschen, 1903, La projection de la rétine sur la corticalité calcarine, La Semaine Médicale, 23, 125
  5. Zeki, 1993, A Vision of the Brain
  6. Gennari, 1782, De Peculiari Structura Cerebri Nonnullisque Eius Morbis
  7. Ingle, 1982, Analysis of Visual Behavior, 67

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 483

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bechtel, W., & Mundale, J.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
Philosophy of Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1999-06
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
175-207
ISSN
  • 0031-8248 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-767X
DOI
10.1086/392683
OpenAlex
W2048737476
Cited by
483
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 8340 d)
Locations
  • Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
multiple realizability, cognitive neuroscience, brain states, psychological state, functional criteria, brain organization, methodological errors, philosophy of mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review