| My dissertation provides an account of explanatory reduction that avoids the criticisms usually leveled against it. The criticisms that initially appear most damaging rest on an assumption that reduction depends on the widely rejected deductive nomological model of scientific explanation. I argue that this assumption is false, in part by drawing attention to the fact that several 17th century thinkers offer a coherent version of reductionism according to which mechanisms and not laws are the primary explanatory tools. To be sure, most contemporary proponents of mechanistic explanation advocate or remain open to anti-reductionism. However, I show that their stance on this issue is untenable. I develop a thoroughly reductionistic account of the relationship between levels of mechanisms in contemporary neuroscience. Finally, I examine several case studies from current research in biological psychiatry in order to provide empirical footing for my account. |
