Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:18:31.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concepts Are Not a Natural Kind*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Edouard Machery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In cognitive psychology, concepts are those bodies of knowledge that are stored in long-term memory and are used by default in human beings’ higher cognitive processes (categorization, inductive and deductive reasoning, etc.). Most psychologists of concepts assume that these mental representations share many scientifically important properties, and the psychology of concepts is expected to describe those properties. Psychologists assume thereby that concepts constitute a natural kind. I call this assumption the natural kind assumption. This article challenges the natural kind assumption. It is argued that a growing body of evidence suggests that concepts do not constitute a natural kind. Hence, the notion of concept is inappropriate, if one aims at formulating scientifically relevant inductive generalizations about the human mind.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 444 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank the anonymous referees for their very useful comments. Previous versions of this article were presented at the University of Paris-Sorbonne in February 2003, at the annual meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology in June 2003, at the Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science in August 2003, at the SOPHA in September 2003, at the Max-Planck Institute for Human Development in March 2004, and at the University of Pittsburgh in April 2004.

References

Ashby, F. Gregory, et al. (1998), “A Neuropsychological Theory of Multiple Systems in Category Learning”, A Neuropsychological Theory of Multiple Systems in Category Learning 105:442–481.Google ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1990), “On the Indistinguishability of Exemplar Memory and Abstraction in Category Representation”, in Thomas K. Srull and Robert S. Wyer (eds.), Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 3, Content and Process Specificity in the Effects of Prior Experiences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 61–88.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1999), “Perceptual Symbol Systems”, Perceptual Symbol Systems 22:577–660.Google ScholarPubMed
Boyd, Richard (1990), “What Realism Implies and What It Does Not”, What Realism Implies and What It Does Not 43:5–29.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1991), “Realism, Antifoundationalism, and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds”, Realism, Antifoundationalism, and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds 61:127–148.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan (1985), Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan (2000), “The Origin of Concepts”, The Origin of Concepts 1:37–41.Google Scholar
Coley, John D., et al. (1999), “Inductive Reasoning in Folkbiological Thought”, in Medin, Douglas L. and Atran, Scott (eds.), Folkbiology. Cambridge, MA: Bradford, 205–232.Google Scholar
Collier, John (1996), “On the Necessity of Natural Kinds”, in Riggs, Peter (ed.), Natural Kinds, Laws of Nature, and Scientific Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–10.Google Scholar
Costello, Fintan J., and Keane, Mark T. (2000), “Efficient Creativity: Constraint-Guided Conceptual Combination”, Efficient Creativity: Constraint-Guided Conceptual Combination 24:299–349.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1974), “Special Sciences”, Special Sciences 28:97–115.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1998), Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198236360.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Rochel (2004), “Cognitive Development”, in Hal Pashler and Douglas L. Medin (eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 3, Memory and Cognitive Processes. New York: Wiley, 533–560.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Robert L., and Kersten, Alan (2003), “Concepts and Categorization”, in A. F. Healy and R. W. Proctor (eds.) Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 4, Experimental Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 599–621.Google Scholar
Gopnik, Alison, and Meltzoff, Andrew N. (1997), Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1997), What Emotions Really Are. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226308760.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1991), “A Tradition of Natural Kinds”, A Tradition of Natural Kinds 61:109–126.Google Scholar
Hahn, Ulrike, and Chater, Nick (1998), “Similarity and Rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically Distinguishable?”, Similarity and Rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically Distinguishable? 65:197–230.Google ScholarPubMed
Hammond, Kristian J. (1989), Case-Based Planning: Viewing Planning as a Memory Task. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-322060-8.50018-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, James A. (1982), “A Demonstration of Intransitivity in Natural Categories”, A Demonstration of Intransitivity in Natural Categories 12:151–164.Google ScholarPubMed
Hampton, James A. (1987), “Inheritance of Attributes in Natural Concept Conjunctions”, Inheritance of Attributes in Natural Concept Conjunctions 15:55–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Hampton, James A. (1988), “Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion”, Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion 14:12–32.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A. (1996), “Conjunctions of Visually-Based Categories: Overextension and Compensation”, Conjunctions of Visually-Based Categories: Overextension and Compensation 22:378–396.Google ScholarPubMed
Hampton, James A. (1997), “Conceptual Combination”, in Lamberts, Koen and Shanks, David (eds.), Knowledge, Concepts and Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–160.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A. (2001), “The Role of Similarity in Natural Categorization”, in Hahn, Ulrike and Ramscar, Michael (eds.), Similarity and Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–28.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198506287.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, A Matter of Individuality 45:335–360.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, Janellen, and Hedges, Larry V. (1994), “Combining Graded Categories: Membership and Typicality”, Combining Graded Categories: Membership and Typicality 101:157–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, Christine, and Keil, Frank C. (2000), “Explanatory Understanding and Conceptual Combination”, in Keil, Frank C. and Wilson, Robert A. (eds.), Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 328–359.Google Scholar
Juslin, Peter, and Persson, Magnus (2002), “PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A ‘Lazy’ Algorithm for Probabilistic Inference from Generic Knowledge”, PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A ‘Lazy’ Algorithm for Probabilistic Inference from Generic Knowledge 26:563–607.Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C. (1989), Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C., and Wilson, Robert A. (eds.) (2000), Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2930.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowlton, Barbara J. (1999), “What Can Neuropsychology Tell Us about Category Learning?”, What Can Neuropsychology Tell Us about Category Learning? 3:123–124.Google ScholarPubMed
Kunda, Ziva, Miller, Dale T., and Claire, Theresa (1990), “Combining Social Concepts: The Role of Causal Reasoning”, Combining Social Concepts: The Role of Causal Reasoning 14:551–577.Google Scholar
Lambert, Koen, and Shanks, David (eds.) (1997), Knowledge, Concepts and Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, Stephen, and Margolis, Eric (1999), “Concepts and Cognitive Science”, in Laurence, Stephen and Margolis, Eric (eds.), Concepts, Core Readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 3–81.Google Scholar
Machery, Edouard (2005), “100 Years of Psychology of Concepts: A Case of Experimental Continuity”, working paper.Google Scholar
Margolis, Eric (1994), “A Reassessment of the Shift from the Classical Theory of Concepts to Prototype Theory”, A Reassessment of the Shift from the Classical Theory of Concepts to Prototype Theory 51:73–89.Google ScholarPubMed
Medin, Douglas L., Lynch, Elisabeth B., and Solomon, Karen O. (2000), “Are There Kinds of Concepts?”, Are There Kinds of Concepts? 51:121–147.Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas L., and Shaffer, Marguerite M. (1978), “Context Theory of Classification Learning”, Context Theory of Classification Learning 85:207–238.Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas L., and Shoben, Edward J. (1988), “Context and Structure in Conceptual Combination”, Context and Structure in Conceptual Combination 20:158–190.Google ScholarPubMed
Mill, John Stuart ([1843] 1905), A System of Logic. Reprint. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. (1988), “Comprehending Complex Concepts”, Comprehending Complex Concepts 12:529–562.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. (1990), “Noun-Phrase Interpretation and Conceptual Combination”, Noun-Phrase Interpretation and Conceptual Combination 29:259–288.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. (2002), The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L., and Medin, Douglas L. (1985), “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence”, The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence 92:289–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, Robert M. (1988), “Exemplar-Based Accounts of Relations between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality”, Exemplar-Based Accounts of Relations between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality 14:700–708.Google Scholar
Osherson, Daniel N., and Smith, Edward E. (1981), “On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts”, On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts 9:35–58.Google Scholar
Osherson, Daniel N., et al. (1990), “Category-Based Induction”, Category-Based Induction 97:185–200.Google Scholar
Prinz, Jesse J. (2002), Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3169.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’”, in Putnam, Hilary, Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–271.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. (1969), “Natural Kinds”, in Quine, William V. O., Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 114–138.10.7312/quin92204-006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, Lance J. (1995), “The Current Status of the Research on Concept Combination”, The Current Status of the Research on Concept Combination 10:72–104.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, Carolyn B. (1975), “Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories”, Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories 7:573–605.Google Scholar
Sloman, Steven A. (1998), “Categorical Inference Is Not a Tree: The Myth of Inheritance Hierarchies”, Categorical Inference Is Not a Tree: The Myth of Inheritance Hierarchies 35:1–33.Google Scholar
Smith, Edward E., Langston, Christopher, and Nisbett, Richard E. (1992), “The Case for Rule in Reasoning”, The Case for Rule in Reasoning 16:1–40.Google Scholar
Smith, Edward E., and Medin, Douglas L. (1981), Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Edward E., and Osherson, Daniel N. (1989), “Similarity and Decision Making”, in Vosniadou, Stella and Ortony, Andrew (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Edward E., Osherson, Daniel N., Rips, Lance J., and Keane, Margaret (1988), “Combining Prototypes: A Selective Modification Model”, Combining Prototypes: A Selective Modification Model 12:485–521.Google Scholar
Smith, Edward E., Patalano, Andrea L., and Jonides, John (1998), “Alternative Strategies of Categorization”, Alternative Strategies of Categorization 65:167–196.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. David (2002), “Exemplar Theory’s Predicted Typicality Gradient Can Be Tested and Disconfirmed”, Exemplar Theory’s Predicted Typicality Gradient Can Be Tested and Disconfirmed 13:437–442.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. David, and Minda, John Paul (2002), “Distinguishing Prototype-Based and Exemplar-Based Processes in Category Learning”, Distinguishing Prototype-Based and Exemplar-Based Processes in Category Learning 28:800–811.Google ScholarPubMed
Zaki, Safa R., and Nosofsky, Robert M. (2004), “False Prototype Enhancement Effects in Dot Pattern Categorization”, False Prototype Enhancement Effects in Dot Pattern Categorization 32:390–398.Google ScholarPubMed