Studied by 4 peopleWhat is an elimination theory?
Science can eliminate as well as reduce things
Elimination is an alternative to reduction, which is proposed by eliminative materialists.
Since they are materialists, Eliminative Materialists believe that the criteria for something existing is that, fundamentally, it is physical.
Therefore, if a concept cannot be reduced to the physical, this means that what the concept refers to does not exist. Therefore, the concept should be eliminated.
Explain the caloric fluid example of elimination
Before heat came to be defined as kinetic molecular energy, it was believed to be a fluid called 'caloric' that flowed into something, making it warm, and out of something, making it cold.
Heat was explained reductively in terms of 'caloric'.
Eventually it was found that this reduction didn't work.
For a reduction to be successful, it must be possible to explain all the causal powers of A in terms of B.
Caloric fluid couldn't account for the causal properties of heat.
Rather it was found that kinetic molecular energy was a more appropriate thing for heat to be reduced to.
The concept of caloric was then found to be referring to something that didn't actually exist, and therefore scrapped.
Why eliminate a word rather than redefine it?
Why not keep the concept of a 'belief, but redefine it as a physical occurrence in the brain?
Because any concept carries a theoretical framework with it.
The notion of caloric carries with it an understanding of science that isn't true, and that can be misleading.
The notion of a 'belief' carries with it an understanding of the way humans work that misleads us and makes us misconstrue the nature of the brain.
So eliminating an irreducible mental concept can help us avoid faulty understandings of the mind that may be carried by the theoretical framework of the term.
What is folk psycholgy?
Folk psychology is our common-sense understanding of the mind;
When describing the mind or their mental state, most people will use concepts like feeling low, vague fears, strong feelings, losing your memory, feeling anxious, thinking about something.
The use of these concepts presupposes a whole framework of ideas about the mind.
This theoretical framework is referred to as ‘folk psychology’ by the Churchlands.
Folk psychology involves the attribution to people of intentional states such as beliefs and desires, as well as sensations or qualia and other mental states
It uses these theoretical concepts to explain and predict their behaviour.
How Eliminative materials approach the claim that mental states identified by folk psychological concepts can be ontologically reduced to neurophysiology?
EM rejects the identity theorist's claim that mental states identified by folk psychological concepts can be ontologically reduced to neurophysiology, arguing instead that they should be eliminated.
How does Eliminate Materialism approach folk psychology?
Folk psychological concepts radically misrepresent the true nature of human beings.
They don't really exist, in the same way that caloric doesn’t actually exist.
As we learn more and more about the mind, folk psychology should be replaced by something more accurate.
So the concepts of folk psychology need to be eliminated and replaced by a more advanced theoretical account of human mentality - an account to be provided by neuroscience.
Explain the argument that folk psychology lacks explanatory power
It is an inadequate account of human nature.
There are many aspects of mental life that folk psychology cannot explain, such as mental illness, the nature of intelligence, sleep, perception and learning.
Explanations of these phenomena will need concepts that folk psychology lacks.
Our neuroscientific understanding of human mentality is developing apace and promises to provide a fuller explanation of such phenomena and so it will supersede folk psychology.
Explain the criticism of folk psychology which says that it hasn’t changed
Successful scientific theories should develop and expand, but folk psychology is stagnating.
If we look at the history of folk psychology, it reveals no progress since the ancient Greek authors, 2,500 years ago.
By contrast, neuroscientific explanations are constantly growing in scope and power.
Explain the criticism of folk psychology which says that it is incoherent with science
Folk theories in general are not accurate and don't survive once science in a particular domain matures.
For example, the folk understanding of how diseases spread, that they were passed on by 'bad air', has been abandoned since the development of germ theory.
So it is highly unlikely that folk psychology will turn out to be true.
In particular, the central idea of intentionality is highly problematic, since it is difficult, in scientific terms, to account for the notion that thoughts or beliefs should be ‘about’ or ‘directed toward’ something.
What is the syllogism for the criticism that folk psychology is incoherent with science with reference to intentionality?
P1. Intentionality cannot be a property of any physical system
P2. Brain states are part of a physical system
C1. So brain states cannot have intentionality
P3. Mental states have intentionality
C2. So mental states are not identical to brain states and MBTIT fails
Explain the criticism that eliminative materialism struggles with our certainty about existence of our mental states
We are certain through introspection of our own mental states e.g. thoughts, desires, emotions, beliefs
So it is counter-intuitive to say these things don’t exist
No argument could be strong enough to justify giving up such a belief.
P1: When you look into your own mind you appear to be directly aware of your own mental states, such as your beliefs, desires and sensations.
P2: It is absurd to deny the existence of what one is directly aware of.
C: So eliminativism is wrong to deny the existence of the mental states picked out by the concepts of folk psychology.
Explain the response to the criticism that eliminative materialism struggles with our certainty about existence of our mental states
Appeals to what is obvious are problematic.
For instance, it once seemed obvious and evident beyond doubt that the sun moves round the Earth.
The objection misunderstands the Churchland’s’ claim. They do not deny the existence of psychological phenomena as such.
They accept that the phenomena that we conceptualise as ‘thinking’ occur or again that we experience pain; they deny that folk psychology is the correct theory of their nature.
Explain the criticism of eliminative materialism which argues that folk psychology has good predictive and explanatory power
Folk psychology is actually quite effective in predicting human behaviour in a range of situations.
In addition, it explains tolerably well a great deal of what people do.
If I know what you want and what you believe, I can predict whether your behaviour
By contrast, neuroscience is almost useless at predicting if you’ll book a holiday or explaining why you went to the cinema last night.
So the universality and antiquity of folk psychology show that it is actually a very successful account of human nature.
The science of psychology continues to employ many of the basic concepts of folk psychology, suggesting that the theory is continuing to develop rather than stagnating.
Why is folk psychology still the best hypothesis?
Since neuroscience doesn't yet have any alternative account of human nature which comes close to the explanatory and predictive power of folk psychology, folk psychology is still the best hypothesis.
Thus we can accept the Churchlands’ insistence that we should only retain concepts that are part of the most powerful explanatory theory, but argue that folk psychology is and will continue to be part of such a theory.
Explain the criticism that eliminative materialism is self-refuting using syllogism
P1: Eliminativism claims that mental states, such as beliefs, do not exist.
P2: But if beliefs do not exist then it is not possible to believe that eliminative materialism is true. And if the language used to articulate the theory doesn't really express genuine propositions or beliefs then it is meaningless.
C: Therefore according to the eliminativist's own view, it is not possible to believe and coherently articulate eliminativism.
C2: And so the theory is self-refuting.
Explain the response to the criticism that eliminative materialism is self-refuting
P1. Anti-vitalists claim that vital spirit doesn't exist.
P2. But if vital spirit doesn't exist, then the vitalist is not alive.
P3. If the anti-vitalist is not alive then the words they use to articulate their view are not expressions of genuine beliefs and so are meaningless.
C1. So according to the anti-vitalist’s view, it is not possible to believe their claims, and so anti-vitalism is self-refuting.
This argument seems clearly wrong, which by analogy suggests that the ‘self refuting’ criticism is wrong also.
The argument is wrong because those who deny vital spirit are giving an alternative account of what it means to be alive, and therefore by their own argument would indeed still be alive.
In the same way, an Eliminative Materialist could say that denying beliefs to be real involves an alternative account of what it means to have meaning, or to be true.
Explain the response to the response to the criticism that eliminative materialism is self-refuting
This analogy is weak.
Eliminativism is denying the very category of belief in which the theory is articulated and with its notions of truth and falsehood, evidence and reasoning.
If beliefs and so forth genuinely don't exist, then eliminativism and the arguments for it cannot be coherently articulated.
And if we can make sense of the eliminativist's arguments, it is only by presupposing the truth of folk psychology.
Explain the criticism that eliminating materialism is self-refuting
The Churchlands claim that folk psychology and our commonsense mental concepts comprise an empirical theory which we can prove false and eliminate
Eliminativism presents arguments, which are expressions of beliefs and rely on beliefs about what words mean and how reasoning works, in order to change our beliefs about folk psychology.
Yet eliminativism claims that there are no beliefs.
So what does eliminativism express and what is it trying to change?
If there are no beliefs, including no beliefs about meaning, no beliefs linked by reasoning, then arguments for eliminativism are meaningless.
An argument for eliminativism refutes itself – it concludes that there are no beliefs but it must presuppose that there are beliefs, expressions of beliefs and rely on beliefs about what words mean and how reasoning works, in order to change our beliefs about folk psychology.
Briefly outline eliminating materialism
Physicalist theory.
Eliminative materialism states that all, or at least some, mental states do not exist.
Argues that future developments in neuroscience will show that the way we think and talk about the mind is fundamentally flawed as some of our mental concepts refer to things that neuroscience will show don't exist
For certain mental states they may agree with the reduction from mental to physical performed by mind-brain identity theory
In which case they don't think that the term should be eliminated
What should be eliminated according to eliminative materialism?
They believe at least some mental states do not exist and therefore, the concept just needs to be eliminated from our picture of what exists, rather than reduced to physical occurrences
Eliminative materialism argues that neuroscience will revolutionise our understanding of phenomenal properties and Intentionality so that we may question whether they exist at all
Neuroscience will show that at least some of our central psychological concepts don't refer to anything - nothing exists that corresponds to some mental terms
e.g. 'belief', "desire' or 'pain' or even "Intentionality' and 'consciousness'
So mental states which neuroscience will reveal cannot be reduced to the physical must be eliminated (MBTIT claims that all mental states can be reduced to physical states)
What is a theoretical framework?
Theoretical framework =
A way of thinking
A system of concepts/ideas
Interlinked concepts
For example
The concept of mammal has with it the theoretical framework of
taxonomy /categorisation
Reptile
Amphibian
Reproduction
A concept cannot be separated from its theoretical framework
The concept of mammal can't be separated from the fact that it's a category, the fact that mammals aren’t reptiles etc
EM’s think that certain concepts should be eliminated because they carry with them a flawed theoretical framework
Explain the difference between reduction and elimination
Reduction:
Reduction occurs when we identify one property with another, more basic or fundamental, kind of property.
An ontological reduction is one that is made based on empirical observation - e.g. science can ontologically reduce things like water to their molecular structure
To perform an ontological reduction from A to B is also to say that everything about A can be explained in terms of B.
Elimination:
Science can eliminate as well as reduce things
Elimination is an alternative to reduction, which is proposed by eliminative materialists.
Since they are materialists, Eliminative Materialists believe that the criteria for something existing is that, fundamentally, it is physical.
Therefore, if a concept cannot be reduced to the physical, this means that what the concept refers to does not exist. Therefore, the concept should be eliminated.
Note
Flashcard