Putnam on reductionism

Cognition 3 (3):289-293 (1974)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Putnam argues that reductionism, “the doctrine that the laws of such ‘higher level’ sciences as psychology and sociology are reducible to the laws of lower-level sciences - biology, chemistry, ultimately to the laws of elementary particle physics”, is wrong. In this note, I take issue with some of Putnam’s arguments.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

The multiple realizability argument against reductionism.Elliott Sober - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (4):542-564.
The reductionist blind spot.Russ Abbott - 2008 - Complexity 14 (5):10-22.
The Unity of Science and the Mentaculus.Martin Glazier - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Supervenience and explanation.Harold Kincaid - 1988 - Synthese 77 (November):251-81.
Physicalism and the Status of Special Science Laws.Vladimír Havlík - 2019 - Teorie Vědy / Theory of Science 41 (2):201-228.
Reductionism in psychology.Shayne Andreasend - 2021 - Dissertation, University of Canterbury
Special-Science Autonomy and the Division of Labor.Michael Strevens - 2016 - In Mark Couch & Jessica Pfeifer (eds.), The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.
A Physicalist Theory of Scientific Theoretical Explanation.Gilbert Bruce Fargen - 1982 - Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
207 (#121,836)

6 months
65 (#89,719)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Garfinkel on Forms of Explanation.Andrew Lugg - 1983 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13 (4):633-646.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?David L. Hull - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (4):491-499.

Add more references