JERRY FODORJERRY FODOR

Biography:Biography: Jerry Fodor was born in New Jerry Fodor was born in New

York City in 1935, of Jewish York City in 1935, of Jewish descent. descent.

He received his A.B. degree He received his A.B. degree ((summa cum laudesumma cum laude) from ) from Columbia University in 1956, Columbia University in 1956, where he studied with Sydney where he studied with Sydney Morgenbesser, and a PhD in Morgenbesser, and a PhD in Philosophy from Princeton Philosophy from Princeton University in 1960, under the University in 1960, under the direction of Hilary Putnam. From direction of Hilary Putnam. From 1959 to 1986 Fodor was on the 1959 to 1986 Fodor was on the faculty of the Massachusetts faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Institute of Technology in Cambridge, MassachusettsCambridge, Massachusetts..

From 1986 to 1988 he was a From 1986 to 1988 he was a full professor at the City full professor at the City University of New York University of New York (CUNY). Since 1988 he has (CUNY). Since 1988 he has been State of New Jersey been State of New Jersey Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science at Cognitive Science at Rutgers University in New Rutgers University in New Jersey. Jersey.

Fodor is a member of the Fodor is a member of the honorary societies Phi Beta honorary societies Phi Beta Kappa and the American Kappa and the American Academy of Arts and Academy of Arts and SciencesSciences

He lives in New York with his He lives in New York with his wife, the linguist Janet Dean wife, the linguist Janet Dean Fodor. He has two grown Fodor. He has two grown children.children.

FODOR: IRREDUCIBILITY OF FODOR: IRREDUCIBILITY OF SPECIAL SCIENCESSPECIAL SCIENCES

A typical thesis of positivistic philosophy of A typical thesis of positivistic philosophy of science is that all true theories in the special science is that all true theories in the special sciences should reduce to physical theories in sciences should reduce to physical theories in the long run.the long run.This is intended to be an empirical thesis.This is intended to be an empirical thesis. Evidence which supports it is provided by such Evidence which supports it is provided by such scientific successes as the molecular theory of scientific successes as the molecular theory of heat and the physical experimentation of the heat and the physical experimentation of the chemical bond.chemical bond.The development of science has witnessed The development of science has witnessed the proliferation of specialized disciplines at the proliferation of specialized disciplines at least as often as it has witnessed their least as often as it has witnessed their reduction to physics, so the widespread reduction to physics, so the widespread enthusiasm for reduction can hardly be a mere enthusiasm for reduction can hardly be a mere induction over its past successes induction over its past successes

The reason of those philosophers who The reason of those philosophers who accept reductivism is that they wish to accept reductivism is that they wish to endorse the generality of physics vis a endorse the generality of physics vis a vis the special sciences: roughly the view vis the special sciences: roughly the view of all events which fall under the laws of of all events which fall under the laws of physics.physics.

Reductivism Reductivism is the view that the special is the view that the special sciences reduce to physics. The sense of sciences reduce to physics. The sense of “reduce to” is, however, proprietary. It can “reduce to” is, however, proprietary. It can be characterized as follows. Letbe characterized as follows. Let

(1) S1x (1) S1x S2x S2x

Be a law of the special science S. ((1) is Be a law of the special science S. ((1) is intended to be read as something like ‘all intended to be read as something like ‘all S1 situations bring about S2 situations.S1 situations bring about S2 situations.For Fodor, science is individuated For Fodor, science is individuated largely by references to its typical largely by references to its typical predicates, hence that if S is a special predicates, hence that if S is a special science S1 and S2 are not predicates of science S1 and S2 are not predicates of basic physics.basic physics.The ‘all’ which quantifies laws of the The ‘all’ which quantifies laws of the special sciences needs to be taken with a special sciences needs to be taken with a grain of salt; such laws are typically grain of salt; such laws are typically exception less.exception less.

A necessary and sufficient condition of A necessary and sufficient condition of the reduction of (1) to a law of physics is the reduction of (1) to a law of physics is that the formulae (2) and (3) be laws, and that the formulae (2) and (3) be laws, and a necessary and sufficient condition of a necessary and sufficient condition of the reduction of S to physics is that all its the reduction of S to physics is that all its laws be also reducible.laws be also reducible.

(2a) S1x (2a) S1x P1xP1x

(2b) S2x (2b) S2x P2x P2x

(3) P1x (3) P1x P2xP2x

P1 and P2 are supposed to be P1 and P2 are supposed to be predicates of physics, and (3) is predicates of physics, and (3) is supposed to be a physical law. Formulae supposed to be a physical law. Formulae like (2) are often called bridge laws. Their like (2) are often called bridge laws. Their characteristic feature is that they contain characteristic feature is that they contain predicates of both the reduced and the predicates of both the reduced and the reducing science. Bridge laws like (2) are reducing science. Bridge laws like (2) are thus contrasted with proper laws like (1) thus contrasted with proper laws like (1) and (3).and (3).

Chemistry

Physics

Biology

the upshot of the remarks so far is that the upshot of the remarks so far is that the reduction of a science requires that any the reduction of a science requires that any formula which appears as an antecedent or formula which appears as an antecedent or consequent of its proper laws must appear consequent of its proper laws must appear as the reduced formula in some bridge law as the reduced formula in some bridge law or other.or other.For example, chemistry is reducible to For example, chemistry is reducible to physics. Because the laws of chemistry and physics. Because the laws of chemistry and physics mention different objects, however, physics mention different objects, however, the laws of chemistry are not derivable from the laws of chemistry are not derivable from the laws of physics alone.the laws of physics alone.

Certain additional statements are needed. Certain additional statements are needed. These include “bridge laws” that relate These include “bridge laws” that relate chemical terms to physical terms as well as chemical terms to physical terms as well as boundary conditions that identify the boundary conditions that identify the circumstances under physical events will circumstances under physical events will produce chemical events.produce chemical events. the notion that higher-level sciences are the notion that higher-level sciences are reducible to lower level one is based on a reducible to lower level one is based on a conception of nature as consisting a conception of nature as consisting a hierarchy of increasingly complex entities.hierarchy of increasingly complex entities.

Organisms

Cells

Molecules

Atoms

BIOLOGY

CHEMISTRY

PHYSICS

Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam present a classic statement…they claim present a classic statement…they claim that reducing all sciences to physics not that reducing all sciences to physics not only represents an ideal state. But also is a only represents an ideal state. But also is a trend of current research.trend of current research.

Fodor claims that not all sciences are reducible Fodor claims that not all sciences are reducible to physics because of the behavior of higher level to physics because of the behavior of higher level entities is not always determined by the behavior entities is not always determined by the behavior of lower level ones. Consider money, for example, of lower level ones. Consider money, for example, economists formulate laws regarding money, such economists formulate laws regarding money, such as Gresham’s law, which says that bad money will as Gresham’s law, which says that bad money will drive good money out of the circulation. This law drive good money out of the circulation. This law holds no matter what the money is made of, be it holds no matter what the money is made of, be it gold, silver, paper, sea shells, beads, or other gold, silver, paper, sea shells, beads, or other objects. As a result, it is doubtful that the laws of objects. As a result, it is doubtful that the laws of economics are reducible to or explainable in terms economics are reducible to or explainable in terms of the laws of physics.of the laws of physics.

ECONOMICS

PHYSICS

Cannot be reduced to physics

The reason for irreducibility is that the The reason for irreducibility is that the kinds, classes, or groupings of objects that kinds, classes, or groupings of objects that are significant at one level are not are significant at one level are not necessarily important for a science at a necessarily important for a science at a different level. different level.