Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Is Common Sense Explicit or Implicit?
Message-ID: <Cx5Lxn.H41@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <1994Sep26.114409.4876@oracorp.com> <Cwv4GJ.8qy@spss.com> <CwyFA4.3zx@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <CwyupB.2Ax@spss.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:05:46 GMT
Lines: 140

In article <CwyupB.2Ax@spss.com>, Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> wrote:
>In article <CwyFA4.3zx@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
>Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>............
>>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.)
>
You are setting a very high standard of what is "scientific". If 
the researcher can't, for one reason or another, account for one of the
factors, his research is no more "scientific"? And in any case you are
nitpicking - I have never discussed the circumstances in which such statement
is made. I was simply pointing out that there are other known factors
influencing human behavior, which go beyond folk psychology. These factors,
unlike desires, beliefs, etc. can be independantly measured, without 
resorting to behavior itself. This was the issue in the original discussion.
That some people may use the scientific terms in a casual, colloquial way,
without understanding, much the same way as folk psychology terms, is not 
an issue. Let me say it again - the issue is that in certain situations there
are ways to predict behavior (in statistically significant manner) using
our knowledge of aspects of physico-chemical structure of the brain.
This is all I wanted to say, could we concentrate on this? If you have
objections to the above, please state them. Trying to show that what I say
_may_ be interpreted in a way indicating that I am spewing nonsense is
waste of time and I am really bored with trying to counter it. 

>>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?
>
It sure is, but the issue was not that the term 'testerone levels' can be
adopted by folk psychology (which of course it can), but whether this term
can help to explain behavior without itself being determined by behavior
(as folk psychology notions are), but by a reference to our knowledge of
physico-chemical structure of the brain. Sorry for repeating myself, but
somehow you seem to insist on directing the discussion strange directions.
Yes, the term 'testerone level' can be used in statements, which are not
'scientifically informed'. So what? How does it contribute to the problem
whether folka psychology is all we have to explain human behavior and 
whether we will ever be able to do better? I was questioning affirmative
answer to the first question and indicating that we already, in certain
circumstances, can do better. You might have misunderstood first time what
I wanted to say, but why do you keep ignoring my clarifications and insist
on nitpicking?

>>>(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.  
>
I didn't also say "in all cases", did I? Yet you assumed so. Have you got any 
reason to think that I meant 'in all cases' and not 'on average'? Wouldn't
it be more sensible at least to ask which I meant, instead of declaring
"You are wrong!"? It would save time and bandwidth. Assuming that the person 
you are discussing with is more stupid than yourself rarely leads to 
a productive discussion. 

>>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".   
>
Sorry, but the only dichotomy I can see is the one you are imagining.
What made you to think that for me ", any reference to biochemical terms 
is "scientific", while any reference to outdated scientific terms is "folk 
psychology"? Above I've explained again what I was trying to say, is it
still not clear? 

>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.  
>
Right, but this is irrelevant the the main issue (see above). Instead of
concentrating on it and discussing if it makes sense you insist on 
interpret what I say in ways which do not make sense. I am puzzled why 
you waste time. Let me ask you directly:
Do you agree that the present knowledge of physico-chemical structure of
the brain allows us in certain circumstances to explain behavior using
aspects of this structure which can be measured independently?
Or will you again make objections based on the statistical nature of such
explanations or on the fact that I certainly do not know the exact chemical
structure of testerone? If this is your intention, do not bother.

>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).
>
Right, I know all this (surprised?), but so what?

>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.

Right again, but so what? where did I exaggerate neuroscience successes?

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
