2 ms·
You claimed that "Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory". The existence of recent papers, from people that include reasonably prominent philoso
by antonvs 3y ago
You claimed that "Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory". The existence of recent papers, from people that include reasonably prominent philosophers, seems to refute this. Unless by "respectable" you're trying to say something about the validity of the theory.
A theory can be respectable, taken seriously by an academic community, without being correct. Perhaps you just used the wrong word.
- tgv 3y agoYeah, we differ about what "respectable" means, but in that case, your beef is with the original top comment. It argued "Dismissing ... a ... respectable philosophical theory like panpsychism ... gives the impression of arrogant scientism". If respectable means nothing more than a bunch of academics write papers about it, that argument is moot. Since Sokal, it must be clear to everybody that that kind of respectability isn't enough for a theory to be discussed as meritorious. Hence, you can't defend a theory by calling it respectable in that sense. Somehow, that seems to be more damning than what I called it.