عنوان مقاله [English]
Hempel's Dilemma is among several arguments posed against physicalism. Physicalists can respond to this dilemma in several ways. The present article aims to analyze Andrew Melnyk and Janice Dowell's responses based on their specific accounts about the conception of the term "physical". Melnyk's account is based upon a scientific realist's approach to natural sciences. We will focus on and discuss about that weather we can adopt such an approach to the present science and in particular the present physics or not. Dowell, however, defends an account according to witch ideal future physics should be replaced by an ideal science that has hallmarks of a scientific theory and differs in its subject matter. The author wants to show that these accounts, each one in respect to particular aspects, cannot play the given role in formulation of the physicalism thesis.