The Folk Psychology Is Bad Evidence And Unreliable Essay

965 Words Nov 27th, 2015 4 Pages
Science and old saying have been in conflict for over 2000 years. Old saying; the folk psychology is has been around for many years and been adapted for so long that it hinders the truth in life. Folk psychology is the familiar observational domain of life, a mysterious approach of life. To Churchland, folk psychology is hopeless, confusing, a matter of common sense. Paul Churchland argues that folk psychology is bad evidence and unreliable because everything that these folks believe is based on fear, beliefs, desire, sensation, pain, joy. They is everything as fate and only can observe their environment with naked eyes. As eliminative materials, it is the total opposite. Eliminativist are not naïve. In order to do anything they must be present to observe, examine carefully while putting all feelings aside. It is about relying completely on facts.
When we take a look at one of many aspect of folk psychology of how wrong it is to make any assumptions and to presume that everything in life can be observed with our naked eyes. For example, “For most of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,… people believed that heat was a subtle fluid held in bodies, much in the way water is held in a sponge” (Churchland, 1). They did not know that the “heat was not a substance at all, but just the energy of motion of the trillions of jostling molecules that make up the heated body itself” (Churchland, 1). How can they possible know that our body produces heat because of the caloric fluid in…

Related Documents