Monday, June 21, 2010

Psychology without the brain?

Chemero and Silberstein report that:
Note that neither Gibson nor Skinnerians claim that the brain is not importantly involved in cognition; rather they claim that psychologists can do all their explanatory work without referring to the brain.  (Chemero & Silberstein, 2008, p.4).
Ok. So, what is the story about why John Dalton was color blind?  He lacked a type of retinal cone, right?  So, do Gibson and Skinner dodge this objection by saying that the retina is not part of the brain?  Or by saying that color blindness is not a concern of psychology?

It seems to me not enough to say the retina is involved in color vision.  It looks like facts about the retina do some explanatory work.

This sort of line looks to have it both ways, that the brain is, of course, important, but not important.

Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the Philosophy of Mind: Replacing Scholasticism with Science. Philosophy of Science, 75, 1-27.

No comments:

Post a Comment