🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.205744.21558@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:

> >There's a theory at the moment that the
> >Dinosaurs were warm-blooded: I don't see how this theory could be
> >formalized, nor do I see how it relies on our "intuitions" - but I'm sure
> >that it's an interesting theory that contributes to scientific progress.
> 
[stuff deleted]

> As for reliance on intuitions, you've stumbled right into the problem.
> It is often *very* difficult to see how theories rely crucially on
> our pre-theoretic intuitions until they've been around for a very long
> time.

It's only a problem for philosophers. Scientists judge theories according
to their effectiveness in the real world and neither know nor care about
their origins. Given the ineffectiveness of psychological theories in the
real world,  it is easy to see that they are not very good theories. No amount
of formalization can save a bad idea.... Perhaps you can elaborate a bit
more on the point you're trying to make about the philosophy of psychology.

philip swann