The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Multiple Realizability Argument Against Reductionism
Abstract
Reductionism is often understood to include two theses: (1) every singular occurrence that the special sciences can explain also can be explained by physics; (2) every law in a higher-level science can be explained by physics. These claims are widely supposed to have been refuted by the multiple realizability argument, formulated by Putnam (1967, 1975) and Fodor (1968, 1975). The present paper criticizes the argument and identifies a reductionistic thesis that follows from one of the argument's premises.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias
Krakauer, J. W., Ghazanfar, A. A., Gomez-Marin, A., MacIver, M. A., & Poeppel, D. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.041 · Cited by 1,358
Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science
Steel, D. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331448.001.0001 · Cited by 109
Causal reductionism and causal structures
Grasso, M., Albantakis, L., Lang, J. P., & Tononi, G. (2021) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00911-8 · Cited by 42
(2009) · Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association · Cited by 31
Sober, E. (2020) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-020-00299-5 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sober, E.
- Venue
- Philosophy of Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 542-564
- ISSN
- 0031-8248 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-767X
- OpenAlex
- W2049580892
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
