Philosophical Studies

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 921–937 | Cite as

Conceptual analysis as armchair psychology: in defense of methodological naturalism

Article
  • 353 Downloads

Abstract

Three proponents of the Canberra Plan, namely Jackson, Pettit, and Smith, have developed a collective functionalist program—Canberra Functionalism—spanning from philosophical psychology to ethics. They argue that conceptual analysis is an indispensible tool for research on cognitive processes since it reveals that there are some folk concepts, like belief and desire, whose functional roles must be preserved rather than eliminated by future scientific explanations. Some naturalists have recently challenged this indispensability argument, though the point of that challenge has been blunted by a mutual conflation of metaphysical and methodological strands of naturalism. I argue that the naturalist’s challenge to the indispensability argument, like naturalism itself, ought to be reformulated as a strictly methodological thesis. So understood, the challenge succeeds by showing (1) that we cannot know a priori on the basis of conceptual analysis of folk platitudes that something must occupy the functional roles specified for beliefs and desires, and (2) that proponents of Canberra Functionalism sometimes tacitly concede this point by treating substantive psychological theories as the deliverances of a priori platitudes analysis.

Keywords

Canberra Plan Naturalism Conceptual analysis Philosophical psychology Philosophical methodology Folk psychology Beliefs and desires Platitudes analysis Neuroscience Psychology 

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Braddon-Mitchell, D., & Nola, R. (2009). Introducing the Canberra Plan. In D. Braddon-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis & philosophical naturalism. Cambridge: Bradford.Google Scholar
  3. Casebeer, W. (2005). Natural ethical facts: Evolution, connectionism, and moral cognition. Cambridge: Bradford.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. D. (2005). The Vulcanization of the human brain: a neural perspective on interactions between cognition and emotion, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 13–24.Google Scholar
  5. Copp, D. (2007). Morality in a natural world. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwall, S. (1998). Philosophical ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Darwall, S., Gibbard, A., & Railton, P. (1992). Toward Fin de siècle Ethics: Some trends. The Philosophical Review, 101, 115–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devitt, M. (1984). Realism and truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Glimcher, P. (2001). Making choices: The neurophysiology of visual-saccadic decision-making. Trends in Neurosciences, 24(11), 654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glimcher, P., Dorris, M., & Bayer, H. (2005). Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games and Economics Behavior, 52, 213–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2000). Representation of a perceptual decision in developing oculomotor commands. Nature, 404, 390–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson, F., & Pettit, P. (1990). In defence of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 5, 7–30.Google Scholar
  14. Kable, J., & Glimcher, P. (2009). The neurobiology of decision: Consensus and controversy. Neuron, 63, 733–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennett, J. (2002). Autism, empathy, and moral agency. The Philosophical Quarterly, 52(208), 340–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kennett, J., & Fine, C. (2009). Will the real moral judgment please stand up? The implications of social intuitionist models of cognition for meta-ethics and moral psychology. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nolan, D. (2009). Platitudes and metaphysics. In D. Braddon-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schroeder, T., Roskies, A., & Nichols, S. (2010). Moral motivation. In J. Doris (Ed.), The moral psychology handbook (pp. 72–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (2001). Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortext (area LIP) of the Rhesus Monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86, 1916–1936.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, M. (1994). The moral problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesRose-Hulman Institute of TechnologyTerre HauteUSA

Personalised recommendations