Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.ultranet.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!hermes.oc.com!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Is Common Sense Explicit or Implicit?
Message-ID: <CwyupB.2Ax@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <1994Sep26.114409.4876@oracorp.com> <Cwuu1z.KxM@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <Cwv4GJ.8qy@spss.com> <CwyFA4.3zx@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 23:31:59 GMT
Lines: 76

In article <CwyFA4.3zx@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>In article <Cwv4GJ.8qy@spss.com>, Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> wrote:
>>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?

It will be a "scientific" statement only if he *has* measured the level of
testosterone, *and* accounted for all other factors which are known to
affect the level of sexual activity.  (If high testosterone were the *only*
such factor, the scientist could get away with the comment; but since it
isn't, he can't.)

>This discussion seems to be drifting off course.

Don't you think it's relevant to a discussion of "folk psychology" to
find out what people mean by the term?  Or to a discussion of cognitive
science, to know what is or is not a scientifically informed statement?

>>(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"'? 

Because there is no such variant; if you meant "on average" you should 
have said so.  

>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.

Sorry, but I think you're setting up a dichotomy between ancient and
modern science that just doesn't hold.  It seems that for you, any
reference to biochemical terms is "scientific", while any reference to
outdated scientific terms is "folk psychology".   

There is *no difference* between a modern man's statement at a party that 
his officemate has "too much testosterone", and a medieval cleric's 
statement that his brother monk has a "sanguine temperament" (besides the 
particular personality implied, I mean).  Both are instances of folk
psychology, drawing on the scientific understanding of the day.  Both
are equally testable (a sanguine temperament was signalled by a ruddy face),
both are generally stated without any test being made, and both are, as
simple statements, wrong.  

Modern science knows *more* about the brain, of course, but people weren't
completely in the dark before.  It's been known for thousands of years,
for example, that people's behavior changes when they ingest enough alcohol.
The Moche of Peru even did minor brain surgery (trepanning).

I think that *someday* neuroscience will be able to explain large parts
of human behavior outside of folk psychology.  For now, it can't.
If I'm being a wet blanket, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's any
service to science to exaggerate its success; quite the opposite.
