Blue Devil Knight wrote: The most important part of all their work (Sellars, Rorty, Feyerabend, the Churchlands) is that our psychological theories do not self-verify, as some people would claim (e.g., those who like to say that their propositional attitudes are just "given": this is the whole point of Sellars' great work Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind). This fact, that we don't know how our minds work by inspection, has interesting consequences.
But doesn't the very operation of science presuppose that humans have perceive the truth of certain propositions; mathematical, observational, and inferential? If we are just wrong about our mental processes, so much so that we think we have propositional attitudes but really don't doesn't that undermine at least the traditional conception of science as the pursuit of truth.
But, as I remember when I wrote my reply to Bill Ramsey on the self-refutation argument, that Paul Churchland (In A Neurocomputational Perspective) was redefining science in pragmatist terms and was ready to get rid of the notion of truth. But pragmatism, it seems to me, puts folk psychology in the driver's seat for sure. Even if you think folk psychology isn't true, you at least have to admit it's pragmatically useful.
I remember spending a number of mornings in Carrow's Restaurant near my house poring over NCP, and thinking that his radical philosophy of mind and radical philosophy of science probably don't go together very well.
Here's the reference for my reply to Ramsey.
Reppert, V. 1991. Ramsey on eliminativism and self-refutation. Inquiry