[quoting Padgett, 22 Feb 96] Argh. It's exactly this kind of distinction that makes it impossible to discuss a point...
Why must there be a conflict? Two modes of inquiry--two different approaches.
Fodor's argument is not meant to place one mode over the other. Most of Fodor's work is in philosophy. He was simply trying to describe an empirical process. We do not philosophize about the temperature at the poles (or can a machine play chess). At one time this was philosophy, now it is science.
Once we understand a problem well enough (or once we can devise adequate methods) we can investigate it empirically. The question, "What is the best way to teach (given these conditions)?" is simply not well-enough understood to be answered scientifically. Thus we resort to philosophy.