Well, it's important to be clear about what version of eliminativism is under discussion. My opinion is that the sort of strong eliminativism espoused by the Churchlands or by Dan Dennet is deeply flawed and is not a serious contender. Despite propaganda to the contrary, the influence of strong eliminativism has been waning over the last couple of decades. I can't see myself ever being convinced that it is correct. To make example of one out of many reasons for this latter position: Paul Churchland is fond of repeating the claim that there is a 1:1 correspondence between brain states and mental states. As far as I can determine, however, that claim is simply false, or at least entirely unsupported. He would like there to be such a 1:1 correspondence, but that's quite different from saying that we know with certainty such correspondence exists.
gunner said:The Churchlands have to be the most ardent anti, common sense theory, philosophers around.
gunner said:My understanding, they are not inclined to suggests their theory will provide a like-for-like refutation.
gunner said:Hence a intertheoretic reduction will be impossible.
gunner said:From reading Paul Churchlands 'Eliminative Materialism' I get the sense the frustrations are more to do with what Folk Psychology doesn't profess to offer, rather than what it does offer. Churchland is desperate for a neuroscientific theory to trample FP, but as yet, it has not produced the goods.
gunner said:I thought Dennet was in favour of FP?