Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 149, Issue 3, pp 401–410 | Cite as

Précis of Doing without Concepts

  • Edouard Machery
Article

The study of concepts is in an odd state of disarray. Cognitive scientists working on categorization, induction, and reasoning have discovered a dazzling number of phenomena, but these findings have yet to be organized in a coherent theoretical framework. In addition, after 20 years of controversy, there is little sign that philosophers and psychologists are converging toward an agreement about the very nature of concepts. Doing without Concepts attempts to remedy this state of affairs. In this précis, I review the main points and arguments developed at greater length in Doing without Concepts, and I conclude that abandoning the very notion of concept is probably required to remedy the state of disarray of the current study of concepts.

“Concept” in cognitive science and in philosophy

In Chapters 1 and 2, I describe the notions of concept that are typically used in cognitive science and in philosophy. My goal is threefold: to make explicit cognitive scientists’ notion of concept, to...

Keywords

Cognitive Scientist Natural Kind Propositional Attitude Distinct Process Scientific Term 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (2004). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149–178.Google Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
  3. Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110, 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, K. (2009). What concepts do. Synthese, 170, 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts, where cognitive science went wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. A. (2003). Is it a bird? Problems with old and new approaches to the theory of concepts. TLS, 17 January 2003, 3–4.Google Scholar
  8. Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gopnik, A. (2003). The theory as an alternative to the innateness hypothesis. In L. Antony & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Chomsky and his critics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 46, pp. 79–113). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts, core readings (pp. 3–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Machery, E. (2005). Concepts are not a natural kind. Philosophy of Science, 72, 444–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Machery, E. (2006a). Two dogmas of neo-empiricism. Philosophy Compass, 1, 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Machery, E. (2006b). How to split concepts. Reply to Piccinini and Scott. Philosophy of Science, 73, 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Machery, E. (2007). Concept empiricism: A methodological critique. Cognition, 104, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology–Paris, 102, 59–70.Google Scholar
  21. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mallon, R., Machery, E., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2009). Against arguments from reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79, 332–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Margolis, E. (1994). A reassessment of the shift from the classical theory of concepts to prototype theory. Cognition, 51, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Margolis, E. (1995). The significance of the theory analogy in the psychological study of concepts. Mind and Language, 10, 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2006). Concepts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/.
  26. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Exemplar-based approach to relating categorization, identification, and recognition. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 363–393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Peacocke, C. (2008). Truly understood. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piccinini, G., & Scott, S. (2006). Splitting concepts. Philosophy of Science, 73, 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. In H. Putnam (Ed.), Philosophical papers, Vol. 2: Mind, language, and reality (pp. 215–271). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Natural kinds. In W. V. O. Quine (Ed.), Ontological relativity and other essays (pp. 114–138). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and stereotypes. Cognition, 15, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rey, G. (2009). Review of E. Machery, Doing without Concepts. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.Google Scholar
  39. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge: Its scope and its limits. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Stich, S. P. (1983). From folk psychology to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stich, S. P. (1996). Deconstructing the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Niyogi, S. (2007). Intuitive theories as grammars for causal inference. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations