Apprentice comments on Less Wrong Rationality and Mainstream Philosophy - Less Wrong

106 Post author: lukeprog 20 March 2011 08:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (328)
Tags: philosophy

Comments (328)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lukeprog 21 March 2011 04:57:44PM 3 points [-]

No, I'm talking about behaviorist psychology. Behaviorist psychology denied the significance (and sometimes the existence) of cognitive states. Showing that cognitive states exist and matter was what paved the way to cognitive science. Many insights from behaviorist psychology (operant conditioning) remain useful, but it's central assumption is false, and it must be false for anyone to be doing cognitive science.

Comment author: Apprentice 21 March 2011 05:26:40PM *  3 points [-]

Okay, but now I'm getting a bit confused. You seem to me to have come out with all the following positions:

  • The worthwhile branch of philosophy is Quinean. (this post)
  • Quine was a behaviorist. (a comment on this post)
  • Behaviorism denies the possibility of cognitive science. (a comment on this post)
  • The worthwhile part of philosophy is cognitive science. ("for me, philosophy basically just is cognitive science" - Lukeprog)

Those things don't seem to go well together. What am I misunderstanding?

Comment author: lukeprog 21 March 2011 05:35:31PM 0 points [-]

Quinean naturalism does not have an exclusive lock on useful philosophy, but it's the most productive because it starts from a bunch of the right assumptions (reductionism, naturalized epistemology, etc.)

Like I said, Quine was wrong about lots of things. Behaviorism was one of them. But Quine still saw epistemology as a chapter of the natural sciences on how human brains came to knowledge - the field we now know as "cognitive science."

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit