Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:30:02.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evidence of coordination as a cure for concept eliminativism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Andrea Scarantino
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302. ascarantino@gsu.edu

Abstract

I argue that Machery stacks the deck against hybrid theories of concepts by relying on an unduly restrictive understanding of coordination between concept parts. Once a less restrictive notion of coordination is introduced, the empirical case for hybrid theories of concepts becomes stronger, and the appeal of concept eliminativism weaker.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cohen, B. & Murphy, G. L. (1984) Models of concepts. Cognitive Science 8:2758.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (1997) What emotions really are. Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heit, E. (1994b) Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20:411–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Keil, F. C. (1989) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002) The big book of concepts. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, G. & Scott, S. (2006) Splitting concepts. Philosophy of Science 73:390409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2009b) The plurality of concepts. Synthese 169(1):145–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, E. J. & Medin, D. L. (1994) On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning. Cognitive Science 18:221–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar