Epistemic reduction of the concept of ‘decision’

Abstract “Reduction” is a widely rejected view of how commonsense psychological notions relate to neuroscience. I argue that there is a particular view of reduction on which reduction of the key commonsense concept of ‘decision’ is a live option. In particular, I advance a version of epistemic reduction based on “connectability.” On this view, reduction relations are not logical relationships, but instead posited identifications that guide subsequent modeling efforts, and are substantiated if one can explain higher-level generalizations with lower-level models. I apply this view to the field of decision neuroscience, and in particular accumulation to bound models of decision-making. I show how this field is achieving the advantages of reductive explanation, including providing increasingly detailed and novel predictions, unifying distinct types of decisions under a single account, and explaining anomalies of rational decision-making. If I am right, the widespread anti-reductive attitude in philosophy of mind needs to be reconsidered.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-04917-8
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.54

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Epistemic reduction of the concept of ‘decision’

Daniel C. Burnston
2 citations
Synthese
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
4.54
article

Epistemic reduction of the concept of ‘decision’

Daniel C. Burnston
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract “Reduction” is a widely rejected view of how commonsense psychological notions relate to neuroscience. I argue that there is a particular view of reduction on which reduction of the key commonsense concept of ‘decision’ is a live option. In particular, I advance a version of epistemic reduction based on “connectability.” On this view, reduction relations are not logical relationships, but instead posited identifications that guide subsequent modeling efforts, and are substantiated if one can explain higher-level generalizations with lower-level models. I apply this view to the field of decision neuroscience, and in particular accumulation to bound models of decision-making. I show how this field is achieving the advantages of reductive explanation, including providing increasingly detailed and novel predictions, unifying distinct types of decisions under a single account, and explaining anomalies of rational decision-making. If I am right, the widespread anti-reductive attitude in philosophy of mind needs to be reconsidered.

SyntheseVol. 205(2)
Tulane University (US)
Universität Bielefeld, Università di Bologna
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
4.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.