z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Folk psychology and network theory: Fact or gamble? A reply to Kalis and Borsboom
Author(s) -
Freek Oude Maatman
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
theory and psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.658
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1461-7447
pISSN - 0959-3543
DOI - 10.1177/0959354320952863
Subject(s) - folk psychology , realism , epistemology , correctness , argument (complex analysis) , direct and indirect realism , critical realism (philosophy of perception) , interpretation (philosophy) , psychology , philosophy , computer science , algorithm , biochemistry , chemistry , linguistics
Kalis and Borsboom (2020) defend their realism about folk psychology against my challenge to provide a grounding argument for the correctness of folk psychological explanation (Oude Maatman, 2020). In this reply, I show how their clarified realism in fact vindicates this challenge, as it heavily relies on the predictive success of folk psychology. I then proceed by describing how their realist interpretation of “intentional content” complicates the usability of network theory, and show that both their antireductionism and realism are grounded in an empirical gamble against alternatives. I end with a brief defense of my own version of network theory.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom