Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Is Common Sense Explicit or Implicit?
Message-ID: <CwyFA4.3zx@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <1994Sep26.114409.4876@oracorp.com> <Cwsys7.K9w@spss.com> <Cwuu1z.KxM@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <Cwv4GJ.8qy@spss.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:58:52 GMT
Lines: 89

In article <Cwv4GJ.8qy@spss.com>, Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> wrote:
>In article <Cwuu1z.KxM@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
>Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>In article <Cwsys7.K9w@spss.com>, Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> wrote:
>>>Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>As I have pointed out, in some case we already say "he has very high 
>>>>testerone levels" instead of "he is a very amorous guy, Don Juan type, 
>>>>loves all women".
>>>
>>>I agreed with most of the rest of your post, but here I think you're 
>>>misanalyzing.  "He has a very high testosterone levels" *is* a statement
>>>of folk psychology.  Just because it uses the jargon of scientific study
>>>of the brain doesn't make it a scientifically informed statement.
>>>
>>Are you saying that it is not scientifically true that men with high 
>>testerone levels devote more of their attention to sex oriented activities?
>
>No, I'm saying that "He has a very high testosterone level" instead of
>"he is a very amorous guy, etc." is a statement of folk psychology.  
>The statement about testosterone level is just appropriating scientific-
>sounding jargon for the purposes of gossip.
>
It seems then that you define "folk psychology" as a body of explanations
used by "a men in the street". This changes somewhat the focus of discussion.
Or would you also count such a statement (He has a very high testosterone 
levels) spoken by someone who knows what testerone is and can measure its
level, as folk psychology?
This discussion seems to be drifting off course.

>(By the way-- it *isn't* "scientifically true", for the same reason that
>it isn't scientifically true that men are stronger than women.  Sorry
>to bring it up, but we take statistical distributions seriously here...)
>
I also know about statistical distributions, but "men are stronger than
women" may mean either "_all_ men are stronger than _all_ women" or
"on average men are stronger than women", may it not? Few other 
variations are also possible, of course. Unless you can show
convincingly why the first interpretation should be more obvious than
the second, please explain what makes you think that I meant the variant
which '*isn't* "scientifically true"'? Since I can hardly believe that you
are unaware of the second, equally legitimate, variant which _is_
"scientifically true", I am puzzled what point are you trying to make.
The same of course applies to testerone levels.

>It's like the popular appropriation of terms of Freudian psychiatry--
>"He's a very repressed guy"; "She's real anal-retentive"; "I'm obsessive
>about running".  These statements certainly aren't based on a real
>psychiatric evaluation; and they're usually founded on a misinterpretation
>of the technical meaning of the terms anyway.
>
>>>In ancient times astrological theory could be mined for the same purpose, 
>>>and indeed we can still describe people as mercurial, jovial, saturnine.
>>>And Plato had his theory of the soul as well.  People were not limited
>>>to descriptive statements before the development of chemistry.
>>
>>I am not sure what you are driving at here. Has vitamins then become a part
>>of folk medicine?
>
>Certainly it has; people routinely misuse vitamins.  But what I was driving
>at was simply to correct your original statement:
>
>>>>The letter was the only explanation available when there was no notion of 
>>>>body chemistry.

I find your 'corrections' as no more than nit-picking, unless you have not
understood what I was trying to say, possibly because I have not made it 
clear enough. Let me state it again:
Progress in understanding some physico-chemical aspects of brain structure
allows us in some cases to explain behavior on the basis of physical and
chemical causes, without concepts of 'folk psychology'. Before such
knowledge of aspects of the brain structure was available, explanation
of behavior could only be made on the basis of the notions of folk
psychology. 
Your reference to the theory of humors seems to me to be irrelevant, since
notions of humors were as phenomenological as desires, beliefs etc.
There was no independent way of determining 'humors' of a given person
except from their behavior, as is the case with beliefs, desires etc.
Testerone levels, on the other hand, can be measured independantly.

If you think the above is not correct and would like to correct something,
I'll be happy to read your comments. However, this time you will hopefully
be more on target.

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
