This paper contests Lynne Rudder Baker's claim to have shown that elim
inative materialism is bound to fail on purely conceptual grounds. It
is argued that Baker's position depends on knowing that certain develo
pments in science cannot occur, and that we cannot know that this is s
o. Consequently, the sort of argument Baker provides is question-beggi
ng. For similar reasons, the confidence that the proponents of elimina
tive materialism have in it is misplaced.