Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • Next step
  • Previous step
  • Skip this slide
  • Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Conclusion to Philosophical Issues in Behavioural Science

challenge

Discover why people act,
individually and jointly.

When you act,

there are reasons why you act;

you know the reasons;

you act because you know the reasons; and

the reasons justify your action. make your action intelligible.

How can we turn this into a theory? Is it true?

This is the basic picture that nearly all philosophers start from in attempting to meet the challenge.
The philosophers have mostly been concerned to find the best way of turning this simple picture into a systematic theory.
It’s just here that psychology and other behavioural sciences are relevant ...
Behavioural sciences contribute two things
We can draw on them in turning the simple picture into a theory (decision theory and game theory are supposed to be elaborations of what it is to be rational).
And, more insterestingly, we can draw on them to show that the simple picture is either wrong or else only a very small part of the answer.

Integration Questions

theories from two or more disciplines
(philosophical, psychological or formal)

which appear to target a single set of phenomena
while saying incompatible things about it ...

1. Are they actually inconsistent? ?

2. If so: how, if at all, should either or both theories be refined?

intention decision theory habitual vs goal-directed

philosophy

What distinguishes actions from things that merely happen to you?

psychology

Which processes are involved in selecting the goals of actions?

Actions are those events which are appropriately related to intentions.

At least two: habitual and goal-directed.

apparent inconsistency

Nothing to say about processes.

Nothing to say about what action is.

apparent mutual dependence

Psychology relies on some understanding of what action is. Without this we have no idea about our subject matter.
Natural to think that philosophy will provide this.
intention decision theory habitual vs goal-directed

Integration Questions

theories from two or more disciplines
(philosophical, psychological or formal)

which appear to target a single set of phenomena
while saying incompatible things about it ...

1. Are they actually inconsistent? ?

2. If so: how, if at all, should either or both theories be refined?

Over to you. (I genuinely do not know, although I will offer some clues at the end of the lecture.)
shared intention decision theory dyadic motor plans
In this case it is less clear whether we have an inconsistency: is there both mutual dependence and inconsistent claims? I am unsure about this.
But in the lectures we skipped over that because there is actually a substantial attempt to unify the two theories. And if unification succeeds, we do not need to worry about whether it was necessary or not.

philosophy

What distinguishes joint actions from things we do in parallel but merely individually?

economics

How can we model rational behaviour in social interactions?

shared intention

game theory team reasoning

Pacherie’s Reconciliation:
‘shared intention lite’

So this looks to be a case where the Integration Challenge was resolved.
Quick reminder what Pacherie’s theory says, in essence
individual reasoning team reasoning decision decision intention shared intention

Integration Questions

theories from two or more disciplines
(philosophical, psychological or formal)

which appear to target a single set of phenomena
while saying incompatible things about it ...

1. Are they actually inconsistent? ?

2. If so: how, if at all, should either or both theories be refined?

Actually if you remember there might have been an objection (the autonomy challenge). But still, at least we have a candidate here
This Interface Problem (although not all interface problems) are things solving which would enable us to meet an Integration Challenge.

Integration Questions

theories from two or more disciplines
(philosophical, psychological or formal)

which appear to target a single set of phenomena
while saying incompatible things about it ...

1. Are they actually inconsistent? ?

2. If so: how, if at all, should either or both theories be refined?

Solve the Interface Problem and you are some way towards answering this question. (Not sufficient but probably necessary)

challenge

Discover why people act,
individually and jointly.

basic theories and discoveries
from three disciplines needed
to answer the question

I always wanted to pure philosophy ... in fact maths and philosophy because I felt stats and mechanics were too applied ... and for a long time I hoped that this would be enough but in talking to scientists I realised that it isn’t

to reach beyond
you need to look beyond

🔑

inconsistencies abound (maybe)

but integration is possible (definitely)

This is the key to the essay questions. In one way or another, you are addressing this question: find significant inconsistencies or consider how integration is possible. (Except for questions about interface problems)