In the late 90's there was a growing acceptance that both theory-theory and simulation theory were partially right and partially wrong, and this culminated in a general acceptance of some sort of hybrid theory (e.g. Nichols & Stich 2003; Goldman 2006).
Every decision you make involves some sort of political theory.
But if she had read further she would have found me saying: "All but a few contemporary psychologists agree that there will eventually prove to be some sort of satisfactory theory of mind-brain relationship … But at present there really is very little consensus about the form, let alone the substance, of this theory-to-come".
Even so, if one engages in a religious practice, such as prayer to God or Buddhist meditation to see through the illusion of having a substantial, enduring ego, the development of some sort of philosophical theory to make sense of this practice seems inevitable.
There is some sort of whackado theory that the friends you make in college will last forever.
They've created some sort of conspiracy theory that President Obama is somehow pulling the strings on anyone who uses the word.
This research was also interesting from a conceptual standpoint as it demonstrated that a highly complex phenomenon, which was thought to derive from some sort of 'chaos' theory, had instead discrete and definite sources.
If you believe emails published in this tatty old report have some sort of chaos-theory effect on a match happening half a globe away, then it appears you've just done for Giroud.
But that receives no mention.Furthermore, the aim of presenting some sort of unified field theory of nonsense is overly ambitious.
This step of the argument appeals to externalism about mental content (Putnam 1975, Burge 1979), specifically some sort of causal covariational theory (see the entry externalism about mental content).
