🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <85d56b27.0405120043.5ea05a37@posting.google.com>, Robert 
M?rtin <robertmaertin@gmx.de> writes
>> I think you'll find that the problems lie much deeper than you make out.
>> It is one thing to assert that one's a physicalist, it's a lot harder to
>> practice that. In some areas of neuroscience the problems just don't
>> arise. They manifest themselves in much more subtle and insidious ways
>> elsewhere.
>
>
>I can remember that Folk Psychology and Intentionality cannot be
>reduced to physical terms and that there is a struggle determinism vs.
>indeterminism.
>But... this never bothered me.
>
>What are you thinking of ?
>Do you know a situation where I might get into serious inner conflicts
>? Or an assumption I have to make as a scientist that really would be
>an outrage for certain philosophers ?
>
>regards
>Robert

The conflict arises when one has to read other peoples'  papers and 
decipher what lots of them are *really doing* (as opposed to what they 
say they're doing). Sadly, the methods sections are not always as clear 
as one might expect. Having to skim so many introductions and 
discussions, and critically read the methods and results sections tends 
to make one a bit punch drunk! Getting down to the work oneself isn't 
all that easy either. Folk insist on talking rather eccentrically and 
ask what one is *really* doing. We are all creatures of our environments 
<g>
-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm