[quickphilosophy] Re: Observation Reconsidered
- From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:22:42 -0000
--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@...> wrote:
>
> That was a good find, Walter.
>
> Fodor makes some keen distinctions.
>
> I skimmed some later pages only and haven't the time (or will) to take part
> in long discussion of these topics. Suffice it to say that Fodor is at the
> highest level when it comes to psychology and New Look advertisements.
>
What's disturbing about that area of his work, from my point of view, is how
Churchland (in his response) and Fodor (in his rejoinder) talk past each other.
If they would just stop arguing for minute and define such expressions as
"theory" "theory-neutral" "encapsulate" and "penetrability," it might be
possible to figure out where and to what extent they actually disagree.
One thing is pretty clear though--Churchland's paper is easier (at least for
me) to understand than Fodor's are.
W
Other related posts:
