Quadt describes correctly that the MV I advocate combines epistemic strategies that are described in several different positions, including ST (Simulation Theory) (Goldman 2006), TT (Theory-Theory) (e.g., Gopnik & Meltzoff 1997), and IT (Interaction Theory) (Gallagher 2001), as well as theory of direct perception (Gallagher 2008). As a consequence, she presupposes that I am committed to the metaphysical foundations of each of these positions, while each position argues for a distinct epistemic strategy. If I were committed to accepting such metaphysical foundations, I would thereby offer an incoherent metaphysics. Quadt shows this by arguing that Simulation Theory and Theory-Theory, on the one hand, presuppose metaphysical claims that are not consistent with the presuppositions from Theories of DP (direct perception) and ITs, on the other hand (tion3). Quadt claims that ST and TT are cognitivist theories that presuppose internalism, mental representations, and the idea that mental phenomena are private hidden entities to which we have no direct access. To register mental phenomena we have to rely on perceiving the behaviour and expressions of other people and have to infer the existence of mental phenomena. Quite the opposite view is taken by the non-cognitivist theories of DP and IT. They allow for externalism of mental phenomena (as being realized by two people and their interaction), they deny the existence of mental representations, and they presuppose that mental phenomena are not hidden but directly perceivable. Thus they rely on non-inferential access to mental phenomena by direct perception. The following quote illustrates the main features of the contrast Quadt develops:
The difference between cognitivist and non-cognitivist pictures of social cognition, in the cases that I just described, seems to boil down to the metaphysical assumption of whether or not there are hidden cause in the outside world that require an inference or representational mechanism in order to access and process them. While ST and TT clearly assume such a view, DP denies it. Therefore, I claim that MV cannot simply combine theoretical elements that draw on such considerable metaphysical differences. (Quadt 2015, p. 5)
My first general reply to this worry is that I only take on the description of an epistemic strategy of acquiring and using information about other people in order to understand them. An epistemic strategy like a simulation (to put oneself in the other person’s shoes) or a theory-based inference is not automatically connected to a metaphysical commitment. De facto, the philosophers who are famous for holding ST or TT combine their view with a metaphysical background, but it does not follow that the epistemic strategy they describe must be combined with the metaphysical background they offer. We can easily see this for example in the case of two epistemic strategies like theory-based inferences and direct perception of mental phenomena. These can be easily combined in a way that allows that some mental phenomena with intense expressive components like basic emotions (Ekman et al. 1972) can be directly perceived (see below), while complex mental phenomena like propositional attitudes may be at least often inferred if the social understanding cannot rely on honest utterances but only on some ambiguous behavioural cues. Thus, the de facto incompatibility of the metaphysical presuppositions of the two main lines of theories of social understanding does not imply that I am committed to inheriting both presuppositions and that I thus run into an incoherent metaphysics. In fact, I do not presuppose two metaphysical principles for the same mental phenomenon; instead I only need to allow for the application of two epistemic strategies of understanding mental phenomena, which may be applied to different mental phenomena (or to the same type of mental phenomenon in different situations). In the next section I outline my alternative metaphysics and illustrate both that it is coherent and that it can allow for direct perception as one epistemic strategy for registering some mental phenomena.