This is not my view

In my earlier post, I noted my surprise regarding some of Robinson's interpretations of my views.  Here is another surprising passage:

I also recognize in this particular case that both the proponents and the critics of the EMT have stipulated that empirical evidence either for or against the EMT will be set to one side, and the case argued on its philosophical merits. (p. 3).

I never register any stipulation like this.  Nor do I think Rupert does.  Maybe there are some people out there who have stipulated that empirical evidence for or against the EMT will be set to one side, but I don't think Rupert or Adams or I say that.  I don't think Clark or Rowlands or Menary or Wilson or Hurley or Noe think this.  I don't recall anyone who does.  Maybe there are folks out there who do this.  I have not read everything in the literature.

But, I also try to evaluate EMT on the empirical evidence.  Look at the discussion of primacy and recency effects in memory, the generation effect, etc.  How is that not appealing to empirical evidence?  Look at the discussion of retinal fading.  How is that not empirical?  Look at the stuff on neuromuscular blockade.   How is that not empirical?  Look at the stuff from psychology that Rupert talks about.