Posted by alexandra_k on April 1, 2005, at 18:36:34
In reply to Re: (vi) Multiple systems theory » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:33:48
> This is my therapist's pragmatic take on it.
:-)
> If something helps in understanding behavior, or conceptualizing a problem, there's no reason not to make use of it.
Ah.
I also go a bit further than that...
If something gives us predictive leverage (that we can get by no other method) then it is TRUE. So attributing mental states to people (like that they believe certain things and that they have certain desires or goals) allows us to predict their behaviour in a way that we cannot by appealing to physics or behaviourism. The grain is different. You can't capture actions at lower levels. It is in virtue of the predictive leverage that we have that intentional state attributions can be true. So it is TRUE that Dinah believes certain things. People really do have beliefs and desires (which the behaviourists deny).But by the same token they are the wrong sorts of things to be found by neuroscientists.
The same with the self. Or selves. But there is also an indeterminacy... So there I have to say that different (apparantly incommensurable interpretations) are both true. But there is nothing further to decide between them. It really is indeterminate - but they are both true in so far as they are both valid interpretations that give us predictive leverage.
But one interpretation is more charitable than the other.
ANd now I am just rambelling - sorry.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:476614
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050321/msgs/478714.html