Wesley Salmon often mentioned, or implicitly referred to, the “overcoming psychological uneasiness” conception of scientific explanation (e.g., 1984: 12-13). Do any readers know whether anyone has actually ever held the view Salmon characterizes? Did Salmon ever attribute it to anyone or otherwise cite anyone as having been sympathetic to it? …
Here.
The Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology program at Washington University in St. Louis would like to call your attention to a special conference on Perception, Language, and Space, to be held Saturday & Sunday March 1st and 2nd. Invited speakers include: Laura Carlson (Univ. Notre Dame, Psychology) Anjan Chatterjee (Univ. Pennsylvania, Cognitive Neurosci.) Rick Grush (UC San Diego, …
I’ve just put together some podcasts and presentations from the last year’s Kazimierz Naturalized Epistemology Workshop 2007 (KNEW’07) on my website. There is also a controversial introduction about the relation of NE to research on artificial cognitive systems – any criticisms welcome!
Thanks everyone for another interesting discussion of the relevance of neuroscience to philosophy, psychology, and especially Chomskian linguistics. Again, I agree that not every neuroscientific fact is relevant to every philosophical or psychological question. Which neuroscientific facts are relevant needs to be determined on a case-by-base basis. But if we don’t …
As explained at Leiter Reports, the philosophy department at Leiden University is under some kind of administrative attack. We might be able to help by emailing the University President. To encourage you to write, here is the email I sent:
Homosexuality is evolutionarily mysterious. Why should it evolve, since it seems to reduce the probability of reproducing? The most obvious hypothesis is that it evolved because it somehow increases the chances of survival of family members, because gays somehow spend extra energy to help their (extended) families (who then go …
