Why do scientists and theorists disagree? It's not a matter of the evidence, which may be the same on all sides. It may, however, be an epistemic question: should we prefer simpler theories? Unifying theories? Or, it may be a non-epistemic question, a matter of how we interpret theories. This article considers two: the descriptive gap argument, and the logical gap argument. Let's focus on the second, and in particular, whether we should apply Morgan's canon, "In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale." Now I ask (where the author doesn't): why are we so likely to apply this principle to animals and computers, but so reluctant to apply it to humans? Do such questions pique you? Then do read this clear and well-reasoned article. Image: Psicologia y Mente.
Today: 2 Total: 1752 [Direct link] [Share]
