Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T16:07:59.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual Combination and Scientific Discovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Paul Thagard
Paul Thagard*
Affiliation:
Philosophy, University of Michigan, Dearborn Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How are scientific concepts formed? This question was central for positivist and operationalist philosophers concerned to root scientific thought directly in experience (e.g., Hempel 1952, Bridgman 1927). Although the positivist program has been abandoned, the current interest in the philosophy of scientific discovery shows the need for a theory of conceptual development. This paper offers a theory of how new concepts can arise, not by abstraction from experience or by definition, but by conceptual combination. Such combination produces a new concept as a non-linear, non-definitional amalgam of existing concepts. After proposing rules intended to account for a variety of mundane cases of conceptual combination, the paper presents several illustrations of how scientific concepts have arisen through combination.

According to a strict empiricist position (Hume 1739), concepts are abstracted from experience or formed by definition. You form the concept of a dog by experiencing a number of examples of dogs and extracting the common features.

Type
Part I. Discovery and Justification
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 2 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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

1

I am grateful for useful discussions with John Holland, Keith Holyoak, Richard Nisbett, and Lindley Darden. Related issues are discussed in Holland et al. (unpublished) and in Thagard (unpublished-ST).

References

Bridgman, P. (1927). The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Darden, L. (1983a). “Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy of Science: Reasoning by Analogy in Theory Construction.” In PSA 1982, Volume 2 . Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Nickles, T.. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 147-165.Google Scholar
Darden, L. (1983b). “Reasoning in Theory Construction: Analogies, Interfield Connections, and Levels of Organization.” Abstracts of the 7th International Congress of Logic. Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Salzburg, Austria. Pages 288-291.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872). The Origin of Species. 6th ed. London: Murray, J.. (As reprinted New York: Collier, 1962.)Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1981). Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1952). Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. (International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Volume II, Number 7.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Holland, J. (1984). “Escaping Brittleness: The Possibilities of General Purpose Learning Algorithms Applied to Parallel Rule-Based Systems.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Cognitive Science Technical Report No. 63.Google Scholar
Holland, J., Holyoak, K., and Thagard, P. (unpublished). Induction: Processes of Inference. Learning, and Discovery.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Noone, John. (As reprinted (ed.) L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1888.)Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In The Psychology of Computer Vision. Edited by Winston, P.. New York: McGraw Hill. Pages 211-277.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. and Smith, E. (1981). “On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts.” Cognition 9: 35-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Language, Mind, and Knowledge. (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 7.) Edited by K. Gunderson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 131-193.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization. Edited by E. Rosch and B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pages 27-48.Google Scholar
Smith, E. and Medin, D. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1978). “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice.” Journal of Philosophy 75: 76-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1980). Against Evolutionary Epistemology.’ In PSA 1980 Volume 1. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Giere, R.N.. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 187-196.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1981). “The Autonomy of a Logic of Discovery.” In Pragmatism and Purpose. Edited by J. Slater, W. Sumner, and F. Wilson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pages 218-260.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1982). “From the Descriptive to the Normative in Psychology and Logic.” Philosophy of Science 49: 24-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. and Nisbett, R. (1982). “Variability and Confirmation”. Philosophical Studies 42: 379-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1983). “Artificial Intelligence, Psychology, and the Philosophy of Discovery.” In PSA 1982, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Nickles, T.. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 166-175.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. and Nisbett, R. (1983). “Rationality and Charity.” Philosophy of Science 50: 250-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (forthcoming-FKI). “Frames, Knowledge, and Inference.” To appear in Synthese.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (unpublished-ST). Scientific Thinking.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185: 1124-1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). “Extensional vs. Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.” Psychological Review 90: 293-315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, P. and Horn, B. (1981). LISP. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations, (trans.) Anscombe, G.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar