I am certain I do not get what Yoshie and others are arguing. What they seem ro be saying is so absurd that it is hard to credit that anyone would actually say these things. I cannot comprehend why anyone would think that psychology is explanatorily empty as far as social explanation goes. Well, that's not quite true. I wrote a dissertation that in part was devoted attacking bad philosophical arguments for this proposition. But I do not think that Yoshie and thew others are coming from the same view as Donald Davidson, though Carrol seen to share an intution that he has. On the other hand they don't seem to be trying to hard to graspo what I have been saying. They seem to think that psychological explanation is incompatible with historical materialism, while I think it is part of HM. As for lawyers, they are no more or less prone to use straw arguments than anyone else. jks
Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> And don't insult my profession. I spend long hours --
> I am doing so tonight -- to put issues fairly and honestly. It is my
> duty as an officer of the court to do so. jks
I have utmost respect for your diligent work in your profession. I wish you were typical of lawyers! (Have you really never heard a lawyer use straw man argumentation?) I still think you don't get what Yoshie et al. are arguing about the utter uselessness of psychological explanations for social facts.
Miles
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030405/908faa3a/attachment.htm>