Milleks on sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisvaldkonnas tarvis filosoofiat?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12697/spe.2011.4.1.02Abstract
Käesoleva artikli eesmärgiks on selgitada, milline on ja peaks olema filosoofia panus sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisvaldkonnas. Vastustades kolme populaarset väidet, mille kohaselt filosoofiat ei ole teaduse tegemiseks tarvis, selgitan, kuidas filosoofid panustavad ning peaksid jätkuvalt panustama sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisse. Eraldi käsitlen mõtteliste eksperimentide rolli sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisel ning väidan, et kuigi klassikalised filosoofilised mõttelised eksperimendid ei sobi sotsiaalse tunnetuse valdkonna teaduslike probleemide lahendamiseks, tuleks rahvapsühholoogia uurimisel ulatuslikumalt rakendada eksperimentaalfilosoofilisi meetodeid. Väidan, et filosoofid analüüsivad sotsiaalse tunnetuse valdkonnas tehtud uurimistööd enamasti normatiivsetel eesmärkidel, kuid tarvis oleks ka sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimistöö põhjalikumat deskriptiivset analüüsimist. Käsitlen ka fenomenoloogia võimalikku rolli sotsiaalse tunnetuse valdkonnas, selgitades, mille poolest fenomenoloogia panus erineb mittefenomenoloogilise filosoofia panusest ning milline on fenomenoloogia potentsiaal sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisel. The aim of the paper is to explain what is and what should be the contribution of philosophy to the social cognition research. I refute three popular claims against the necessity of philosophy in scientific research and bring out several ways of how philosophers contribute and should continue to contribute to social cognition research. I clarify the role of thought experiments in studying social cognition and argue that although classical philosophical thought experiments are unsuitable for solving scientific problems in this area, the methods of experimental philosophy should be more widely used for studying folk psychology. I claim that whereas philosophers tend to analyse the research of social cognition in order to make normative claims, there is likewise a need for more elaborate descriptive analysis. I also analyse the possible role of phenomenology in social cognitive research and explain how does the contribution of phenomenology differ from the contribution of nonphenomenological philosophy and what is the potential of phenomenology in social cognition research.Downloads
References
Astington, J. W. ja Gopnik, A. (1988). Knowing you’ve changed your mind: Children’s understanding of representational change. J. Astington, P. Harris ja D.Olson(toim.), Developing Theories of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, lk 193-206.
Baron-Cohen,S., Leslie, A.M. ja Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’?, Cognition 21: 37-46.
Bennett, J. (1978). Some remarks about concepts, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1: 557-560.
Bohl, V.(2011). Sotsiaalne tunnetus kui hübriidelevant. B.Mölder ja J.Kangilaski (toim.), Filosoofia ja analüüs: Analüütilise filosoofia seminar 2 EYS Veljesto Kirjastus, Tartu, lk 219-258.
Brook, A.(2008). Phenomenology: Contribution to cognitive science, Abstracta: Linguagem, Mente e Ação, Special Issue II, lk 54-70.
Brook, A. (2009). Introduction: Philosophy in and philosophy of cognitive science, Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 216-230.
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Cohnitz, D. (2006). Gedankenexperimente in der Philosophie, Mentis,Paderborn.
DeJaegher, H. (2009). Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting, Consciousness & Cognition 18: 535-542.
Dennett, D. C. (1978). Beliefs about beliefs, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1: 568-570.
Dennett, D.C. (2009). The part of cognitive science that is philosophy, Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 231-236.
Epley, N. ja Waytz, A. (2009). Mind perception. S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert ja G.Lindzey (toim.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 5. tr, Wiley, New York, lk 498-541.
Gallagher, S. (2003). Phenomenology and experimental design: Towards a phenomenologically enlightened experimental science, Journal of Consciousness Studies 10: 85-99.
Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context, Consciousness and Cognition 17: 535-543.
Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gordon, R. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation, Mind and Language 1: 158-171.
Harman, G. (1978). Studying the chimpanzee’s theory of mind, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1: 576-577.
Herschbach, M. (2008). Folk psychological and phenomenological accounts of social perception, Philosophical Explorations 11: 223-235.
Husserl, E. (1987). Phänomenologie als strenge Wissenschaft, Aufsätze und Vorträge 1911-1921. Husserliana XXV, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, lk 3-62.
Irvine, A. D. (1991). Thought experiments in scientific reasoning. T. Horowitz ja G. Massey (toim.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, lk 149-166.
Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn’t know, Journal of Philosophy 83: 291-295.
Jackson, F. (2004). Epifenomenilised kvaalid, Akadeemia 16: 733-748. Tlk B. Mölder.
Knobe, J. (2008). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. J. Knobe ja S. Nichols (toim.), Experimental Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, lk 129-148.
Knobe, J. ja Nichols, S. (2008a). Experimental Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Knobe, J. ja Nichols, S. (2008b). An experimental philosophy manifesto. J. Knobe ja S.Nichols (toim.), Experimental Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, lk 3-16.
Leudar, I. ja Costall, A. (toim.) (2009). Against Theory of Mind, Palgrave Macmillan.
Lieberman, M. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes, Annual Review of Psychology 58: 259-289.
Lutz, A., Lachaux, J.-P., Martinerie, J. ja Varela, F. (2002). Guiding the study of brain dynamics using first-person data: Synchrony patterns correlate with on-going conscious states during a simple visual task, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99: 1586-1591.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). La phenomenologie de la perception, Gallimard, Paris.
Mittelstrass, J. (2001). On transdisciplinarity. M.S. Sorondo (toim.), Science and the Future of Mankind: Science for Man and Man for Science; The Proceedings of the Preparatory Session, 12-14 November 1999 and the Jubilee Plenary Session, 10-13 November 200 Pontificia Accademiadelle Scienze, Vatican, lk 495-500.
Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology, Routledge, London.
Mölder, B. (2010). Sellarsi mütoloogia, Akadeemia 22: 2292-2303.
Nadelhoffer, T. (2008). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. J. Knobe ja S. Nichols (toim.), Experimental Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, lk 149-167.
Papineau, D. (2009a). Naturalism. E. N. Zalta (toim.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2009 tr. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/naturalism/
Papineau, D. (2009b). The poverty of analysis, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary LXXXIII: 1-30.
Premack, D. ja Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1: 515-526.
Prinz, J. J. (2008). Empirical philosophy and experimental philosophy. J.Knobe ja S.Nichols (toim.), Experimental Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, lk 189-208.
Putnam, H. (1973). Meaning and reference, Journal of Philosophy 70: 699-711.
Reiland, I.(2009). Mis on filosoofia?, Studia Philosophica Estonica 2.1:19-31.
Schilbach, L. (2010). A second-person approach to other minds, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 449.
Sellars, W. (1962). Philosophy and the scientific image of man. R. Colodny (toim.), Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, lk 35-78.
Sellars, W. (2010). Empirism ja vaimufilosoofia, Akadeemia 22: 1713-173 1905-192 2091-211 2279-2291. Tlk A. Unt.
Stich, S. (1994). Psychology and philosophy. S. Guttenplan (toim.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, Blackwell Publishing, lk 500-507.
Thagard, P. (2009). Why cognitive science needs philosophy and vice versa, Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 237-254.
Van Gelder, T. (1998). The roles of philosophy in cognitive science, Philosophical Psychology 11: 117-136.
Varela, F. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy to the hard problem, Journal of Consciousness Studies 3: 330-350.
Weinberg, J. M., Nichols, S. ja Stich, S. (2001). Normativity and epistemic intuitions, Philosophical Topics 29: 429-460.
Wilms, M., Schilbach, L., Pfeiffer, U., Bente, G., Fink, G. R. ja Vogeley, K. (2010). It’s in your eyes: Using gaze-contingent stimuli to create truly interactive paradigms for social cognitive and affective neuroscience, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5: 98-107.
Wimmer, H. ja Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception, Cognition 13: 103-128.
Zahavi, D. (2004). Phenomenology and the project of naturalization, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3: 331-347.
Zahavi, D. (2010). Naturalized phenomenology. S. Gallagher ja D. Schmicking(toim.), Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, lk 2-199.
