Folk psychology is under threat - that is to say - our everyday conception that human beings are agents who experience the world in terms of sights, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings and who deliberate, make plans, and generally execute actions on the basis of their beliefs, needs and wants - is under threat. This threat is evidenced in intellectual circles by the growing attitude amongst some cognitive scientists that our common sense categories are in competition with connectionist theories and modern neuroscience. It is often thought that either folk psychology or modern cognitive science must go. It is in these terms that the battle lines of today's philosophy of mind are drawn. It is not uncommon to hear that commonsense psychology has been undermined by 'revolutionary' advances in cognitive science. We are asked to believe, if you will, that there has been (or will shortly be) a sort of internal revolution within theories of psychology akin to the internal revolution that took place in cosmology during Milton's time. However, there is one crucial difference between the two cases in that the modern revolutions of cognitive science, unlike the Copernican revolution, purport to be 'ontologically radical' theory changes. That is to say, whereas the entities described by the Ptolemaic cosmology (i.e. planets) remained largely intact when cosmological theory went the way of Copernicus - the modern switch from classical cognitivism to connectionism threatens to be an eliminative theory change. Such a change is allegedly on par with internal theory changes which have resulted in drastic alterations in our view of 'what there is' and 'what there is not'. It is thought that beliefs and desires might be lost the way caloric fluid, phlogiston, and the like were lost (cf. Ramsey et al., 1991, p. 96). Furthermore, if we, as unbiased observers, judge the progress of this war it becomes quickly obvious that the folk psychologists are consistently on the defensive...