Yes Virginia, Folk Psychological Understanding Really is Explanatory
Towards a Realist Conception of the “Verstehen Bubble”
In: Stephen Turner and the Philosophy of the SocialSearch for other papers by Karsten R. Stueber in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
In thinking about the nature of the social sciences, Stephen Turner has always been a resolute naturalist arguing for the eradication of any remnants of an unjustifiably enchanted conception of the social realm. Accordingly, he has been skeptical about notions such as practices, norms, or even folk-psychological concepts such as beliefs and intentions. At most, such concepts belong to what he calls the “Verstehen Bubble,” within which members of a social community provide each other with an intellectual hug in terms of narratives that allow them to somehow endow their lives with significance.
In discussing Turner’s views, I will argue for a realist conception of the “Verstehen Bubble.” I will defend the causal explanatory potential of our folk-psychological framework and argue that it constitutes an autonomous domain vis a vis the explanatory practice of the cognitive neurosciences. I will do this also by discussing why I regard my conception of our folk psychological practices to be fully in accord with Weber’s complex manner of thinking about our grasp of the significance of human agency. Finally, I will discuss why I regard talk of mere patterns and of responses to affordances outside the realm circumscribed by our empathic capacities and folk psychological repertoire to be explanatorily blind.