Psychology and Neuroscience: The Distinctness Question.

In a recent paper, Gualtiero Piccinini and Carl Craver have argued that psychology is not distinct from neuroscience. Many have argued that Piccinini and Craver's argument is unsuccessful. However, none of these authors have questioned the appropriateness of Piccinini and Craver's argument for their...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Erkenntnis Vol. 87; no. 4; pp. 1753 - 1773
Main Author: Bantegnie, Brice
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Aug2022
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=158079796&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 158079796
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01650106
        5KZ
      jtl: Erkenntnis
      issn: 01650106
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2022
      vid: 87
      iid: 4
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        158079796
        10.1007/s10670-020-00272-x
      ppf: 1753
      ppct: 20
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 729KB
      tig:
        atl: Psychology and Neuroscience: The Distinctness Question.
      aug:
        au: Bantegnie, Brice
        affil: Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Jilská 1, 110 00, Praha 1, Staré Město, Czech Republic
      su:
        Philosophy of science
        Functional analysis
        Neurosciences
        Neuroethics
        Argument
      sug:
        subj:
          Philosophy of science
          Functional analysis
          Neurosciences
          Neuroethics
          Argument
      ab: In a recent paper, Gualtiero Piccinini and Carl Craver have argued that psychology is not distinct from neuroscience. Many have argued that Piccinini and Craver's argument is unsuccessful. However, none of these authors have questioned the appropriateness of Piccinini and Craver's argument for their key premise—that functional analyses are mechanism sketches. My first and main goal in this paper is to show that Piccinini and Craver offer normative considerations (on what functional analyses should be) in support of what is a descriptive premise and to provide some guidelines on how to argue for this premise. My second goal is to show that the distinctness question should be of great significance for philosophy of cognitive science.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Erkenntnis is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Erkenntnis
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N