Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T06:23:51.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Multiple Realisation be Explained?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

Alexander Franklin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multiple realisation prompts the question: how is it that multiple systems all exhibit the same phenomena despite their different underlying properties? In this paper I develop a framework for addressing that question and argue that multiple realisation can be reductively explained. I illustrate this position by applying the framework to a simple example – the multiple realisation of electrical conductivity. I defend my account by addressing potential objections: contra (e.g.) Polger and Shapiro (2016), Batterman (2018), and Sober (1999), I claim that multiple realisation is commonplace, that it can be reductively explained, but that it requires a sui generis reductive explanatory strategy.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 27 - 48
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2020

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

References

Aizawa, Kenneth, ‘Multiple realization by compensatory differences’, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3 (2013) 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aizawa, Kenneth, ‘Multiple realization and multiple “ways” of realization: A progress report’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 68 (2018) 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aizawa, Kenneth and Gillett, Carl, ‘Levels, individual variety, and massive multiple realization in neurobiology’, In Bickle, John, (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 539–581.Google Scholar
Batterman, Robert W., ‘Multiple realizability and universality’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51 (2000), 115–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert W., ‘Philosophical implications of Kadanoff's work on the renormalization group’, Journal of Statistical Physics, 167 (2017), 559–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert W, Batterman, ‘Autonomy of theories: An explanatory problem’, Noûs, 52 (2018), 858–73.Google Scholar
Bickle, John, ‘Has the last decade of challenges to the multiple realization argument provided aid and comfort to psychoneural reductionists?’ Synthese, 177 (2010), 247–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickle, John, ‘Multiple realizability’, In Zalta, Edward N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, summer 2020 edition, 2020.Google Scholar
Bogen, James and Woodward, James, ‘Saving the phenomena’, The Philosophical Review, 97 (1988), 303–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy, ‘Emergence, reduction and supervenience: A varied landscape’, Foundations of Physics, 41 (2011) 920–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dye, James L. and Tepper, Frederick, ‘Alkali metal’, In Encyclopædia Britannica, June 2018, URL britannica.com/science/alkali-metal.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A., ‘Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis)’, Synthese, 28 (1974) 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Alexander, ‘Universality reduced’, Philosophy of Science, 86 (2019), 1295-1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Alexander and Knox, Eleanor, ‘Emergence without limits: The case of phonons’, Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 64 (2018) 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, Carl, ‘The metaphysics of realization, multiple realizability, and the special sciences’, The Journal of Philosophy, 100 (2003), 591–603.Google Scholar
Gillett, Carl, Reduction and emergence in science and philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttemann, Andreas, Kühn, Reimer, and Terzidis, Orestis, ‘Stability, emergence and part-whole reduction’, In Morrison, Margaret and Falkenburg, Brigitte, (eds.), Why More is Different: Philosophical Issues in Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Systems, (Springer, 2015) chapter 10.Google Scholar
Kantorovich, Lev, Quantum theory of the solid state: an introduction, volume 136, (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon, Physicalism, or something near enough, (Princeton University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, ‘Emergent physics and micro-ontology’, Philosophy of Science, 79 (2012), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, ‘Complex systems and renormalization group explanations’, Philosophy of Science, 81 (2014), 1144–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polger, Thomas W. and Shapiro, Lawrence A., The Multiple Realization Book, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Huw and Corry, Richard, editors, Causation, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality: Russell's Republic Revisited, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary, ‘Philosophy and our mental life’, In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2, (Cambridge University Press, 1975) 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Lauren N, ‘Multiple realizability from a causal perspective’, Philosophy of Science, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, Juha and Reutlinger, Alexander, ‘Taking reductionism to the limit: How to rebut the antireductionist argument from infinite limits’, Philosophy of Science, 85 (2018), 455–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence A., ‘Multiple realizations’, The Journal of Philosophy, 97 (2000), 635–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence A., ‘Reduction redux’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 68 (2018) 10–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, Elliott, ‘The multiple realizability argument against reductionism’, Philosophy of Science, (1999) 542–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar