Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-16T15:48:59.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Solipsism and Explanation in Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Raimo Tuomela
Raimo Tuomela*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Helsinki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is a discussion of the tenability of methodological solipsism, which typically relies on the so-called Explanatory Thesis. The main arguments in the paper are directed against the latter thesis, according to which internal (or autonomous or narrow) psychological states as opposed to noninternal ones suffice for explanation in psychology. Especially, feedback-based actions are argued to require indispensable reference to noninternal explanantia, often to explanatory common causes. Thus, to the extent that methodological solipsism is taken to require the truth of the Explanatory Thesis, it, too, can be regarded as untenable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 23 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I wish to thank those who read earlier versions of this paper. I benefited especially from the comments of Dr. George Berger, Prof. Jay Garfield, and an anonymous referee for this journal.

References

REFERENCES

Bach, K. (1982), “De re Belief and Methodological Solipsism”, in A. Woodfield (ed.), Thought and Object. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 121–151.Google Scholar
Baker, L. R. (1985), “A Farewell to Functionalism”, Philosophical Studies 48: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, L. R. (1986a), “Just What Do We Have in Mind?”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10: 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, L. R. (1986b), “Content by Courtesy”, The Journal of Philosophy 84: 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1979), “Individualism and the Mental”, Midwest Studies 4: 73–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1986), “Individualism and Psychology”, The Philosophical Review 95: 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1976), Person and Object. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1980), “Fodor Flawed”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 79–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1980), “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. (1970), “Sensory Feedback Mechanisms in Performance Control: With Special Reference to the Ideo-Motor Mechanism”, Psychological Review 77: 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1982), “Psychophysical Supervenience”, Philosophical Studies 41: 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1984), “Concepts of Supervenience”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14: 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985), “Narrow Taxonomy and Wide Functionalism”, Philosophy of Science 52: 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycan, W. (1984), Logical Form in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, H. (1981), “Methodological Solipsism”, Philosophical Studies 40: 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), “The Meaning of Meaning”, in his Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956), The Direction of Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruben, D.-H. (1985), The Metaphysics of the Social World. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (1981), “Truth and the Theory of Content”, in H. Parret and J. Bouveresse (eds.), Meaning and Understanding. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 204–222.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1983), Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. (1978), “Autonomous Psychology and the Belief-Desire Thesis”, The Monist 61: 573–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. (1983), From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1977), Human Action and Its Explanation. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1984), A Theory of Social Action. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1985), Science, Action, and Reality. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar