Abstract
This paper offers a novel view of unity in neuroscience. I set out by discussing problems with the classical account of unity-by-reduction, due to Oppenheim and Putnam. That view relies on a strong notion of levels, which has substantial problems. A more recent alternative, the mechanistic “mosaic” view due to Craver, does not have such problems. But I argue that the mosaic ideal of unity is too minimal, and we should, if possible, aspire for more. Relying on a number of recent works in theoretical neuroscience—network motifs, canonical neural computations (CNCs) and design-principles—I then present my alternative: a “flat” view of unity, i.e. one that is not based on levels. Instead, it treats unity as attained via the identification of recurrent explanatory patterns, under which a range of neuroscientific phenomena are subsumed. I develop this view by recourse to a causal conception of explanation, and distinguish it from Kitcher’s view of explanatory unification and related ideas. Such a view of unity is suitably ambitious, I suggest, and has empirical plausibility. It is fit to serve as an appropriate working hypothesis for 21st century neuroscience.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 3843-3863 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | Synthese |
Volume | 193 |
Issue number | 12 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1 Dec 2016 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Keywords
- CNC
- Explanation in neuroscience
- Levels
- Mechanistic mosaic
- Network motifs
- Oppenheim and Putnam
- Sparsify
- Unity of science