I hereby continue serving up steamy draft chunks of my Oxford Bibliography on Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Now, with more brain flavor:
Though there’s considerable overlap with work in ELIMINATIVISM and REDUCTIONISM , in the past two decades philosophy of neuroscience has taken off as a subdiscipline of its own. Probably the most comprehensive of the article-length overviews is Bickle, Mandik, and Landreth (2006), but see also Brook and Mandik (2007). Anthologies of key works in philosophy of neuroscience are Bechtel et al (2001), Bickle (2009), Brook and Akins (2005), and Machamer, Grush, and McLaughlin (2001). Two excellent research monographs by philosophers of neuroscience are Bechtel (2008) and Bickle (2003).
Bechtel, W., Mandik, P., Mundale, J., & Stufflebeam, R. (Eds.). (2001). Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
A collection of both classic and newer works in the field.
Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental Mechanisms: Philosophical Perspectives on Cognitive Neuroscience. London: Routledge.
A research monograph presenting Bechtel’s distinctive take on the philosophy of neuroscience.
Bickle, J., Mandik, P., & Landreth, A. (2006). The Philosophy of Neuroscience [Electronic Version]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2006 Edition), from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2006/entries/neuroscience/
The most comprehensive of the article-length treatments of the philosophy of neuroscience.
Bickle, J. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A wide ranging and up to date collection of articles by main key contributors to the area.
Bickle, J. (2003). Philosophy and Neuroscience: A ruthlessly reductive account. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
A research monograph presenting Bickle’s distinctive take on the philosophy of neuroscience.
Brook, A., & Mandik, P. (2007). The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement. Analyse & Kritik, 29(1), 3-23.
An overview of the philosophy of neuroscience that pays particular attention to issues concerning consciousness.
Brook, A., & Akins, K. (Eds.). (2005). Cognition and the Brain: The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A collection of articles based on talks given at a conference dedicated to the topic.
Machamer, P., Grush, R., & McLaughlin, P. (Eds.). (2001). Theory and Method In The Neurosciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Of the philosophy of neuroscience anthologies, this one has perhaps the strongest leaning toward the philosophy of science (as opposed to the philosophy of mind).
What about Craver's "Explaining the Brain"? BTW, I tend to think that neurophilosophy is at least somehow related to neuroscience ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm limited to only 8 entries, and don't want too many monographs. If Craver's ETB goes on, then either Bechtel 2008 or Bickle 2003 comes off. Vote?
ReplyDeleteI cannot rationally vote, I never had time to read Bickle 2003, and I'm reductionistically biased to prefer all mechanistic stuff. "Mental mechanisms" are in a way similar to "Explaining the brain", but Craver is a bit more focused on neuroscience (especially in the first chapter).
ReplyDeleteI vote for keeping Bill's book as the representative work for the mechanistas. Carl's book didn't come together so well--the case studies are incomplete and the rules for inferring mechanisms have fairly ridiculous failure conditions.
ReplyDeleteCraver's book should definitely be in the list. I don't care what else goes out. Marcin, thanks for bringing it up. Anonymous, what are you talking about? Carl's book raised the level of debate on neuroscientific explanation by at least one order of magnitude.
ReplyDeleteHi Gualtiero,
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous reviewer for OUP agrees with you about Carl's book, so that's another vote (unless you're the reviewer!). I think I'll include Carl's book!
Re the anonymous poster to this thread, I kinda wondered if that's Carl himself.
:)