Quinean naturalism does not have an exclusive lock on useful philosophy, but it’s the most productive because it starts from a bunch of the right assumptions (reductionism, naturalized epistemology, etc.)
Like I said, Quine was wrong about lots of things. Behaviorism was one of them. But Quine still saw epistemology as a chapter of the natural sciences on how human brains came to knowledge—the field we now know as “cognitive science.”
Okay, but now I’m getting a bit confused. You seem to me to have come out with all the following positions:
The worthwhile branch of philosophy is Quinean. (this post)
Quine was a behaviorist. (a comment on this post)
Behaviorism denies the possibility of cognitive science. (a comment on this post)
The worthwhile part of philosophy is cognitive science. (“for me, philosophy basically just is cognitive science”—Lukeprog)
Those things don’t seem to go well together. What am I misunderstanding?
Quinean naturalism does not have an exclusive lock on useful philosophy, but it’s the most productive because it starts from a bunch of the right assumptions (reductionism, naturalized epistemology, etc.)
Like I said, Quine was wrong about lots of things. Behaviorism was one of them. But Quine still saw epistemology as a chapter of the natural sciences on how human brains came to knowledge—the field we now know as “cognitive science.”