Glouisel also asked:

I am struggling rather with Davidson's paper "Mental Events". I wonder if you could suggest a
chapter/article I could read that give a simplified exposition and summarise the central criticisms of it?

My problem is understanding what more there is to the argument for anomalism of the mental than an
indeterminacy thesis. Davidson's indeterminacy goes further than Quine's, beyond translation of
another's utterances into the mental states — beliefs etc. — behind them. So there is no single set of
mental predicates true of me, but rather several equally eligible ones. Although this indeterminacy
does not condemn psychological laws, it makes psychophysical ones look impossible. For, how can
we hope for laws when its unclear even what events they are supposed to hold between? Indeed,
why doesn't indeterminacy similarly jeopardise identity between token mental and physical events?
There must be something I have misunderstood.

Also why does Davidson need to show there are no psychological laws too? Davidson is arguing that
there are no such laws and not that we could never know them because there is an infinite amount of
information to adjust for, isn't he?

============

Davidson's argument is that the mind causally interacts with the body, and where there is causal
interaction there are strict causal laws. Davidson claims that there can be no strict psycho-physical
laws (describing causal relations between the mental and physical), and no strict psychological laws.
These claims are based on Davidson's assumption that laws must be exceptionless like the laws of
physics rather than generalisations of psychology. So if there is a strict law governing causal relations
it must be a physical law which governs both the mental and the physical. So if the mental is involved
in causal interactions, any mental event must also be a physical event. However, mental description
cannot be reduced to the physical description.

There is indeterminacy in the generalisations of psychology because of the possibility of
misinterpretation. In "Mental Events" Davidson's examples of the mental are propositional attitudes or
the intentional states which constitute 'folk psychology', which is our way of explaining behaviour and
understanding others. This form of psychological explanation is not lawlike but is a form of
generalisation bearing essential reference to the notion of rationality. For instance, I desire a drink, I
believe there is something to drink in the fridge, so I form the intention to go to look in the fridge. The
contents of the desire, belief and intention are logically related, rational and are dispositional rather
than causal. There is no necessity that I form the intention to look in the fridge however thirsty I am.
Should I do so there will be a strict causal explanation at the physical level. This psychological
explanation of behaviour uses the mental predicates of propositional attitudes, i.e. desire, belief and
intention and these may be true of you because there will be a fact about you which makes it true that
you have particular desires and beliefs when someone interprets your behaviour.

The reason for claiming there are no psychological laws is that Davidson takes laws as strict, causal
and exceptionless and holds that this sort of a law is a physical law. He understands the mental as
dispositional. The dispositional is not strictly causal and so there can be no psychological laws. There
can be no psychophysical laws either because of this difference in the nature of the physical and the
mental. Davidson claims the mental is not reducible through "law or definition". The mental cannot be
defined in terms of the physical, or we would not be talking about what we take ourselves to be
talking when we describe and understand behaviour by reference to propositional attitudes. We
would, as Davidson says, be "changing the subject". Patterns of belief are essentially understood by
in terms of rationality and consistency.

As to your questions, basically, mental predicates can be true of you when an interpretation of your
beliefs is born out by your actually having those beliefs. You know what your beliefs are and can
predicate them of yourself without indeterminacy. Indeterminacy of interpretative psychology doesn't
jeopardise the identity of a mental and physical event. There is simply one event with a mental
description, where the true description will be determinate, and a description in physical terms.
Psychological laws are not rejected on the basis that we could never know them, because we do
indeed understand folk psychology. If we give up this form of normative description we are not
explaining the mental.

Jaegwon Kim has argued that Davidson cannot maintain that the mental is dependent on the physical
and deny psycho-physical laws in his paper "Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables" (in
American Philosophical Quarterly,Vol 15, 2, April 1978). Before getting on to this, it is probably a
good idea to read more of Davidson's Essays.There is an article on Davidson by McLaughlin in
McLaughlin and Lapore's Philosophy of Psychologywhich be of some help.

Rachel Browne