You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Discussion: A Defense of Bechtel and Mundale*
Mark B. Couch
Philosophy of Science
Vol. 71, No. 2 (April 2004), pp. 198-204
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/383011
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Species, Octopuses, Humans, Cognitive psychology, Empirical evidence, Behavioral neuroscience, Eyes, Psychological research, Phenotypic traits, Retina
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Kim claims that Bechtel and Mundale's case against multiple realization depends on the wrong kind of evidence. The latter argue that neuroscientific practice shows neural states across individuals and species are type identical. Kim replies that the evidence they cite to support this is irrelevant. I defend Bechtel and Mundale by showing why the evidence they cite is relevant and shows multiple realization does not occur.
Copyright 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.