Reply to comment

I think that discussing a little philosophy is useful in this class.  The outlook one adopts, whether constructivism, constructive realism, or realism will affect one’s aims.  Similarly, the perspectives of multiplism, pragmatic multiplism, and singularism are relevant.  These concepts or principles influence the goals and methodologies of interpretation in art, science, and all other human endeavors.  By studying neuroscience and medicine, we are attempting to interpret the brain and mental health. 

It is a matter of philosophy whether or not you believe that there really is an empty table in the room.  This philosophy will allow you make certain interpretative claims.  If someone doesn’t think there is a table in the room, then you can diagnose a problem with their brain or nervous system.  As a realist singularist, it seems, to me, to be easier to set non-arbitrary norms.  As a constructivist singularist, you might be able to set the same norms, based on consensus.  However, this consensus is subject to the counter arguments put forth in the McDermott and Varrenne paper. 

Multiplists face a great challenge determining admissible criteria for interpretations. Multiplist ideals may be more inclusivist in nature.  These criteria may be open to the some criticisms as the singularist constructivists.  They may also lead to an anarchy of interpretation or what we called the soft and fuzzy definition in class.  The philosophical perspective can help inform our arguments and take our thoughts in new and interesting directions.  Some of those places, we have already visited in class, but there are many more.