[quickphilosophy] Re: Observation Reconsidered
- From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:53:48 -0000
--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- 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
> > >
> > > Well, Fodor is more the adept in philosophy than Churchland is. Compare
> > > how swiftly Searle makes the Churchlands look silly in his Sci. Am.
> > > article.
> > >
> > > Fodor, like Searle, is a nonreductive physicalist who sees that
> > > particular sciences tend to proliferate over time. See his review of
> > > Consilience by E. O. Wilson. Fodor seems to me to remain philosophically
> > > acute as to what is being assumed in a proposed area such as the area
> > > reductionists like Dennett and Churchland are trying to carve out or in.
> > >
> > > He's a splended whittler and I'm very happy to hear that you have trouble
> > > reading him. Trying to get through _Concepts: Where Cognitive Science
> > > Went Wrong_ was trying, to say the least--and I was just getting started
> > > with his writings at the time.
> > >
> > > And I'm not that active at the moment distilling his genius.
> > >
> > > Suffice it for today, I wanted to learn what you might have to say on
> > > this irreverent iconoclast given his support of granny and not the
> > > parrots of the day, including Harvard.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Budd
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, to be frank I think Churchland is occasionally full of shit (as, for
> > example, when he suggests that shifting a Necker cube is a function of a
> > theoretical shift), but, OTOH, Fodor's theory clearly has a problem dealing
> > with upside-down shifting lenses and he doesn't seem to mind obfuscating
> > when nothing else seems to work quite as well.
> >
> > As I said, I wish (as often I do right here on internet lists!) that it
> > wasn't so important to each of them to be right and whack the other guy, so
> > they could spend that time carefully specifying their agreements and
> > differences and trying to iron the latter out where possible.
> > But--alas--that's not the way of the world, either philosophical or
> > political....
> >
> > W
>
> Sounds true but it seems to me that Noam Chomsky's _Hopes and Prospects_ has
> legs in both areas philosophical and political, or just political, if you
> discount the philosophy it takes to remind those in ruffled shirts who've
> risen above the blood spilled by simply refusing to remember.
>
> Thanks for the upside down shifting stuff--is this a possible example of
> looking for bona fide theorems as to how an eye/brain goes from 1-D to 2-D to
> 3-D?
>
> Also, if you could provide a source for the above obfuscating by Fodor, just
> for fun.
>
> Budd
>
The Fodor article is "A Reply to Churchland's 'Perceptual Plasticity' and
Theoretical Neutrality." Much of it seems right to me, but.....
W
Other related posts:
