Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:19:27.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limits of Physicalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Patricia A. Ross
Patricia A. Ross*
Affiliation:
Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science and Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mark Wilson, in his 1985 paper entitled “What Is This Thing Called ‘Pain‘?: The Philosophy of Science Behind the Contemporary Debate,” proposed an account of physicalism that departs significantly from standard approaches. One of the main points of his paper was to explain the flaws in arguments claiming that psychological properties cannot be shown to be physical because of their functional nature. However, the positive proposal that Wilson makes in this article bears further examination. I argue that it not only resolves many problems that have grown up around the topic of physicalism, but that the proposal itself should make us radically rethink some important philosophical questions, especially those concerning explanation and property identification.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 94 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Center for Philosophy of Science, 355 Ford Hall, 224 Church St. S.E., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

‡

This paper began as a chapter of my Ph.D. thesis. I would like to thank my advisor, Allen Stairs, and Jeffrey Bub for their help and guidance. I would also like to thank David MacCallum and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry (1993), “Physicalism”, in Earman, J., (ed.), J. Earman, Berkeley: University of California Press, 271–291.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1980), Classical Mechanics, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Harris, Herbert and Schaffner, Kenneth (1992), “Molecular Genetics, Reductionism, and Disease Concepts in Psychiatry”, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17: 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugeland, John (1982), “Weak Supervenience”, American Philosophical Quarterly 19(1): 93–103.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1993), Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Allen (1985), “Physical Properties”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993), “Theory Structure, Reduction and Disciplinary Integration in Biology”, Biology and Philosophy 8(3): 319–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark (1985), “What is This Thing Called ‘Pain‘?: The Philosophy of Science Behind the Contemporary Debate”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 227–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark (1993), “Honorable Intensions”, in Wagner, S. and Warner, R. (eds.), Naturalism. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 53–94.Google Scholar