I'm hoping to read that book by Chang next year. While I think his positive take on philosophy and scientific inquiry is very interesting, I thought his criticisms in other work of correspondence theories were rather weak. Perhaps they will be more persuasive in the context of a book-length discussion.
I disagree that neurophilosophy got abandoned. What happened instead is that it became invisible mostly because it got normalized but also because the Churchlands retired and the dorky term “neurophilosophy” got retired with them. But look at Anne Sophie Barwich, Richard Brown, Jorge Morales, Mathias Michel, Gualtiero Piccini, Michael Anderson, to name just a few. All very active at the intersection of neuro and phil, and doing what Pat and Paul said we ought to be doing.
That's fair enough and I appreciate the nudge in the right direction. It's also similarly how I feel about Pragmatism, Ordinary Langauge Philosophy and Behaviourism in Psychology.
I'm hoping to read that book by Chang next year. While I think his positive take on philosophy and scientific inquiry is very interesting, I thought his criticisms in other work of correspondence theories were rather weak. Perhaps they will be more persuasive in the context of a book-length discussion.
I'm really glad you read and enjoyed Robert Chapman's empire of normality. I love that book!
I disagree that neurophilosophy got abandoned. What happened instead is that it became invisible mostly because it got normalized but also because the Churchlands retired and the dorky term “neurophilosophy” got retired with them. But look at Anne Sophie Barwich, Richard Brown, Jorge Morales, Mathias Michel, Gualtiero Piccini, Michael Anderson, to name just a few. All very active at the intersection of neuro and phil, and doing what Pat and Paul said we ought to be doing.
That's fair enough and I appreciate the nudge in the right direction. It's also similarly how I feel about Pragmatism, Ordinary Langauge Philosophy and Behaviourism in Psychology.