Given that you accept heterophenomenology, I wish you’d put this in explicitly heterophenomenological terms—in terms of accounting for the utterances that people make, in other words. The reason I keep banging on about this is that I think that it is the key move in defusing the confusions you exhibit here.
I accept heterophenomenology only in the sense that people can indeed be mistaken in describing their experiences. On those occasions, you only need to account for the description. But I would say “folk phenomenology” is correct about the basics.
Accepting heterophenomenology means accepting that if a theory successfully accounts for everything you can observe from the outside, there is no further work to do. I hope to do a top-level post about this soon.
Given that you accept heterophenomenology, I wish you’d put this in explicitly heterophenomenological terms—in terms of accounting for the utterances that people make, in other words. The reason I keep banging on about this is that I think that it is the key move in defusing the confusions you exhibit here.
I accept heterophenomenology only in the sense that people can indeed be mistaken in describing their experiences. On those occasions, you only need to account for the description. But I would say “folk phenomenology” is correct about the basics.
Accepting heterophenomenology means accepting that if a theory successfully accounts for everything you can observe from the outside, there is no further work to do. I hope to do a top-level post about this soon.