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 …
Computation and Cognitive Science 7-8th July 2008 King’s College, Cambridge Supported by The British Academy, The British Society for the Philosophy of Science, King’s College Cambridge, Microsoft Research, and The Mind Association Speakers: Kenneth Aizawa (Centenary College, Louisiana) William Bechtel (UCSD) Jack Copeland (University of Canterbury) Frances Egan (Rutgers) Chris …
Asks Ken Aizawa. Answer: Never.Thanks a lot to Arnold, Anibal, Eric, Tony, and Ken for a great discussion of whether we may ignore neuroscience. The bottom line is that I’ve been accused of “methodological imperialism” for suggesting that philosophers of mind ought to take neuroscience into account. Well, I don’t …
One of the best ideas I’ve read about, from today’s NYT. I had to share.
Here.
