Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that folk psychological concepts like rationality will be replaced by precise neurophysiological descriptions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Folk psychology and neuroscience operate at different explanatory levels; replacing one with the other commits a category error.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Understanding rationality requires normative standards (what *should* be rational), which neurophysiology describes but cannot derive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Folk concepts serve social and practical functions (moral responsibility, communication) that neurophysiology alone cannot fulfill.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Folk psychology uses vague, inconsistent concepts (e.g., 'rational' means different things in different contexts) that neuroscience can make precise.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Historical precedent shows science replaces folk concepts: 'phlogiston' and 'vital force' disappeared when better explanations emerged.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Neurophysiological descriptions can predict and explain behavior more accurately than folk psychological attributions alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42