Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:30:49.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2023

Muhammad Ali Khalidi
Muhammad Ali Khalidi
Affiliation:
City University of New York
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Ontology
Taxonomic Practices in the Mind-Brain Sciences
 , pp. 243 - 267
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Abramowitz, J. (2018). Presidential address: Are the obsessive-compulsive related disorders related to obsessive-compulsive disorder? A critical look at DSM-5’s new category. Behavior Therapy, 49(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Addis, D. R. (2018). Are episodic memories special? On the sameness of remembered and imagined event simulation. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 48(2–3), 64–88.Google Scholar
Aggleton, J. P., & Brown, M. W. (2006). Interleaving brain systems for episodic and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 455–463.Google Scholar
Aizawa, K. (2017). Multiple realization, autonomy, and integration. In Kaplan, D. M. (ed.), Explanation and integration in mind and brain science (pp. 215–235). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aizawa, K., & Gillett, C. (2009). Levels, individual variation and massive multiple realization in neurobiology. In Bickle, J. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience (pp. 539–582). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. V. (1994). Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 9(4), 443–469.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 245–266.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2015). Mining the brain for a new taxonomy of the mind. Philosophy Compass, 10(1), 68–77.Google Scholar
Andreasen, N. C. (1997). Linking mind and brain in the study of mental illnesses: a project for a scientific psychopathology. Science, 275(5306), 1586–1593.Google Scholar
Antony, L. (2016). Bias: Friend or foe? Reflections on Saulish skepticism. In Brownstein, M. and Saul, J. (eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy, volume 1: Metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 157–191). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ariew, A. (1999). Innateness is canalization: In defense of a developmental account of innateness. In Hardcastle, V. G. (ed.), Where biology meets psychology: Philosophical essays (pp. 117–138). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ariew, A. (2007). Innateness. In Matthen, M. and Stephens, C. (eds.), Philosophy of biology (Handbook of the philosophy of science vol. 3) (pp. 567–584). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13(3), 263–308.Google Scholar
Ásta, (published under Sveinsdóttir, Á. K.). (2013). The social construction of human kinds. Hypatia, 28(4), 716–732.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., & Casaponsa, A. (2020). The Whorfian brain: Neuroscientific approaches to linguistic relativity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 393–412.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. P., & Wheeler, M. (2004). The grain of domains: The evolutionary-psychological case against domain-general cognition. Mind & Language, 19(2), 147–176.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2001). The concept of episodic memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 356(1413), 1345–1350.Google Scholar
Baker, L. R. (2011). Does naturalism rest on a mistake? American Philosophical Quarterly, 48(2), 161–173.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baldock, E., Anson, M., & Veale, D. (2012). The stopping criteria for mirror-gazing in body dysmorphic disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 323–344.Google Scholar
Baluška, F., & Levin, M. (2016). On having no head: Cognition throughout biological systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 902.Google Scholar
Barclay, J. R., Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., McCarrell, N. S., & Nitsch, K. E. (1974). Comprehension and semantic flexibility. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(4), 471–481.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making. In Koehler, D. and Harvey, N. (eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 19–36). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C. (2018). Modularity and domain specificity. In Callan, H. (ed.), The international encyclopedia of anthropology (pp. 1–10). Wiley.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, A. C., Gathercole, S. E., and Conway, M. A. (eds.), Theories of memory, (pp. 29–101). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2016). On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1122–1142.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L., & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 373(1752), 20170144.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91.Google Scholar
Bascandziev, I., Tardiff, N., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (2018). The role of domain-general cognitive resources in children’s construction of a vitalist theory of biology. Cognitive Psychology, 104, 1–28.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (2001). Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. In Bechtel, W. et al. (eds.), Philosophy and the neurosciences: A reader (pp. 134–151). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bateson, P. & Mameli, M. (2007). The innate and the acquired: Useful clusters or a residual distinction from folk biology? Developmental Psychobiology, 49(8), 818–831.Google Scholar
Beck, J. (2018). Marking the perception–cognition boundary: The criterion of stimulus-dependence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(2), 319–334.Google Scholar
Bédécarrats, A. & Glanzman, D. L. (2018). Regulation of memory storage through epigenetic alterations: A new role for RNA. The Biochemist, 40(5), 12–15.Google Scholar
Beilharz, F. L., Atkins, K. J., Duncum, A. J., & Mundy, M. E. (2016). Altering visual perception abnormalities: A marker for body image concern. PloS ONE, 11(3), Article e0151933.Google Scholar
Beilharz, F., Castle, D. J., Grace, S., & Rossell, S. L. (2017). A systematic review of visual processing and associated treatments in body dysmorphic disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 136(1), 16–36.Google Scholar
Binder, J. R. (2016). In defense of abstract conceptual representations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1096–1108.Google Scholar
Blanco, F. (2017). Cognitive bias. In Vonk, J. and Shackelford, T. (eds.), Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior. Springer.Google Scholar
Block, N. (1986). Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10(1), 615–678.Google Scholar
Block, N. (1987). Functional role and truth conditions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 61, 157–181.Google Scholar
Block, N. (2003). Do causal powers drain away? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(1), 133–150.Google Scholar
Bloom, P., & Keil, F. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind & Language, 16(4), 351–367.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2020). Linguistic relativity: From Whorf to now. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bohon, C., Hembacher, E., Moller, H., Moody, T., & Feusner, J. (2012). Nonlinear relationships between anxiety and visual processing of own and others’ faces in body dysmorphic disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 204(2–3), 132–139.Google Scholar
Bonnet, L., Comte, A., Tatu, L., Millot, J. L., Moulin, T, & de Bustos, E. M. (2015). The role of the amygdala in the perception of positive emotions: An “intensity detector.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 178.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2012). How the languages we speak shape the ways we think: The FAQs. In Spivey, M. J., Joanisse, M., and McRae, K. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 615–632). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–79). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (1989). What realism implies and what it does not. Dialectica, 43(1–2), 5–29.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (1991). Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61(1–2) 127–148.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (2000). Kinds as the “workmanship of men”: Realism, constructivism, and natural kinds. In Nida-Rümelin, J. (ed.), Rationality, realism, revision, (pp. 52–89). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (2008). Evolutionary economics of mental time travel? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 219–224.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (2009). What are memories for? Functions of recall in cognition and culture. In Boyer, P. and Wertsch, J. V. (eds.), Memory in mind and culture (pp. 3–28). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Domain specificity and intuitive ontology. In Buss, D. (ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 96–118). Wiley.Google Scholar
Boyle, A. (2020). The impure phenomenology of episodic memory. Mind & Language, 35(5), 641–660.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I., & Griffiths, P. E. (2007). The importance of homology for biology and philosophy. Biology & Philosophy, 22(5), 633–641.Google Scholar
Bronstein, M. V., & Cannon, T. D. (2017). Bias against disconfirmatory evidence in a large nonclinical sample: Associations with schizotypy and delusional beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 8(3), 288–302.Google Scholar
Buhlmann, U., Etcoff, N. L., & Wilhelm, S. (2006). Emotion recognition bias for contempt and anger in body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 40(2), 105–111.Google Scholar
Buhlmann, U., Wacker, R., & Dziobek, I. (2015). Inferring other people’s states of mind: Comparison across social anxiety, body dysmorphic, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 34, 107–113.Google Scholar
Buhlmann, U., Winter, A., & Kathmann, N. (2013). Emotion recognition in body dysmorphic disorder: Application of the reading of the mind in eyes task. Body Image, 10(2), 247–250.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1986). Individualism and psychology. Philosophical Review, 95(1), 3–45.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camp, E. (2009). Putting thoughts to work: Concepts, systematicity, and stimulus-independence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(2), 275–311.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2003). The organization of conceptual knowledge: The evidence from category-specific semantic deficits. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 354–361.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1988). Conceptual differences between children and adults. Mind and Language, 3(3), 167–181.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (Ed.) (1964). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2002). The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(6), 657–674.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2012). Language in cognition. In Margolis, E., Samuels, R., and Stich, S. P. (eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 382–401). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning, 58(Suppl.1), 63–79.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2016). Linguistic relativity. In Reimer, N. (ed.), Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 158–174). Routledge.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2015). All concepts are ad hoc concepts. In Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.), The conceptual mind (pp. 543–566). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ceschi, A., Costantini, A., Sartori, R., Weller, J., & Di Fabio, A. (2019). Dimensions of decision-making: An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 188–200.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2008). Foreword. In Clark, A. (ed.), Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension (pp. ix–xxix). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charland, L. C. (2002). The natural kind status of emotion. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53(4), 511–537.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1985). Social and non-social knowledge in vervet monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 308(1135), 187–201.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, S., & Werning, M. (2016). What is episodic memory if it is a natural kind? Synthese, 193, 1345–1385.Google Scholar
Cheng, S., Werning, M., & Suddendorf, T. (2016). Dissociating memory traces and scenario construction in mental time travel. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 60, 82–89.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
Chiandetti, C., & Vallortigara, G. (2008). Is there an innate geometric module? Effects of experience with angular geometric cues on spatial re-orientation based on the shape of the environment. Animal Cognition, 11(1), 139–146.Google Scholar
Child, W. (2001). Triangulation: Davidson, realism and natural kinds. Dialectica, 55(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1982). Is “thinker” a natural kind? Dialogue, 21(2), 223–238.Google Scholar
Cibelli, E., Xu, Y., Austerweil, J. L., Griffiths, T. L., & Regier, T. (2016). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and probabilistic inference: Evidence from the domain of color. PLoS ONE 11(7), e0158725.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(5), 461–480.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1998). Magic words: How language augments human computation. In Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 162–183). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 324–355). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Close, J., Hahn, U., Hodgetts, C. J., & Pothos, E. M. (2010). Rules and similarity in adult concept learning. In Mareschal, D., Quinn, P. C., and Lea, S. E. G. (eds.), The making of human concepts (pp. 29–51). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, J. (2005). Nativism: In defense of a biological understanding. Philosophical Psychology, 18(2), 157–177.Google Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of representation: Why you can’t represent the same concept twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 390–406.Google Scholar
Corns, J. (2012). Pain is not a natural kind (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City University of New York.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization. In Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 84–116). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, F. (1999). What’s within? Nativism reconsidered. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2009). Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 575–594.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2013). Functions and mechanisms: A perspectivalist view. In Huneman, P. (ed.), Functions: Selection and mechanisms (pp. 133–158). Springer.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2020). Remembering: Epistemic and empirical. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11(2), 261–281.Google Scholar
Crick, F., & Koch, C. (1990). Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness. Seminars in Neuroscience, 2, 263–275.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. (2007). Teachers in the wild. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 95–96.Google Scholar
Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 44(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1973). Radical interpretation. Dialectica, 27(3–4), 313–328.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20Google Scholar
De Brigard, F. (2014). Is memory for remembering? Recollection as a form of episodic hypothetical thinking. Synthese, 191(2), 155–185.Google Scholar
De Brigard, F., Addis, D. R., Ford, J. H., Schacter, D. L., & Giovanello, K. S. (2013). Remembering what could have happened: Neural correlates of episodic counterfactual thinking. Neuropsychologia, 51(12), 2401–2414.Google Scholar
Debus, D. (2016). Imagination and memory. In Kind, A. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (pp. 135–148). Routledge.Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (2010) Heuristic bias, conflict, and rationality in decision-making. In Glatzeder, B., Goel, V., and Müller, A. (eds.), Towards a theory of thinking, (pp. 22–33). Springer.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1997). How to do other things with words. In Preston, J. (ed.), Thought and language (pp. 219–235). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dèttore, D., & O’Connor, K. (2013). OCD and cognitive illusions. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(1), 109–121.Google Scholar
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24(5), 613–621.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1977). Against indeterminacy. Journal of Philosophy, 74(9), 535–538.Google Scholar
Earman, J., & Friedman, M. (1973). The meaning and status of Newton’s law of inertia and the nature of gravitational forces. Philosophy of Science, 40(3), 329–359.Google Scholar
Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Egan, F. (2014). How to think about mental content. Philosophical Studies, 170(1), 115–135.Google Scholar
Eisen, J. L., Phillips, K. A., Coles, M. E., & Rasmussen, S. A. (2004). Insight in obsessive compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 45(1), 10–15.Google Scholar
Eichenbaum, H. (2007). Persistence: Necessary, but not sufficient. In Roediger, H., Dudai, Y., and Fitzpatrick, S. (eds.), Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 193–198). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, B. (2009). Ontological individualism reconsidered. Synthese, 166(1), 187–213.Google Scholar
Epstein, B. (2015). The ant trap: Rebuilding the foundations of the social sciences. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (2007). Psychological categories as homologies: Lessons from ethology. Biology & Philosophy, 22(5), 659–674.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (2012). Homology thinking. Biology & Philosophy, 27(3), 381–400.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 86–102Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
Feusner, J., Hembacher, E., Moller, H., & Moody, T. (2011). Abnormalities of visual processing in body dysmorphic disorder. Psychological Medicine, 41(11), 2385–2397.Google Scholar
Feusner, J., Neziroglu, F., Wilhelm, S., Mancusi, L., & Bohon, C. (2010). What causes BDD: Research findings and a proposed model. Psychiatric Annals, 40(7), 349–355.Google Scholar
Feusner, J. D., Moller, H., Altstein, L., Sugar, C., Bookheimer, S., Yoon, J., & Hembacher, E. (2010). Inverted face processing in body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(15), 1088–1094.Google Scholar
Fine, C., Gardner, M., Craigie, J., & Gold, I. (2007). Hopping, skipping or jumping to conclusions? Clarifying the role of the JTC bias in delusions. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12(1), 46–77.Google Scholar
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1981). Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Walker, E. C. T., & Parkes, C. H. (1980). Against definitions. Cognition, 8(3), 263–367.Google Scholar
Foster, J. K. (2009). Memory: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francken, J. C., & Slors, M. (2014). From commonsense to science, and back: The use of cognitive concepts in neuroscience. Consciousness and Cognition, 29, 248–258.Google Scholar
Francken, J. C., & Slors, M. (2018). Neuroscience and everyday life: Facing the translation problem. Brain and Cognition, 120, 67–74.Google Scholar
Garety, P. A., Bebbington, P., Fowler, D., Freeman, D., & Kuipers, E. (2007). Implications for neurobiological research of cognitive models of psychosis: A theoretical paper. Psychological Medicine, 37(10), 1377–1391.Google Scholar
Garson, J. (2011). Selected effects and causal role functions in the brain: The case for an etiological approach to neuroscience. Biology and Philosophy, 26(4), 547–565.Google Scholar
Garson, J. (2019). What biological functions are and why they matter. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 404–409.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83(1), 49–79.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind (pp. 195–235). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In Koehler, D. and Harvey, N. (eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 19–36). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2018). The bias bias in behavioral economics. Review of Behavioral Economics, 5(3–4), 303–336.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107–143.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2002). Introduction – Heuristics and biases: Then and now. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D., (eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Armstrong, S. L., & Gleitman, H. (1983). On doubting the concept “concept.” In Scholnick, E. Kofsky (ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget's theory? (pp. 87–110). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In Holyoak, K. J. and Morrison, R. G. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633–661). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glennan, S. (2017). The new mechanical philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2010). Causal pluralism. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C., and Menzies, P. (eds.), Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 326–337). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1954/1979). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1984). Conceptual and semantic change in scientists and children: Why there are no semantic universals. Linguistics, 20, 163–179.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (1988). Conceptual and semantic development as theory change: The case of object permanence. Mind & Language, 3(3), 197–216.Google Scholar
Gottfried, G. M., & Gelman, S. A. (2005). Developing domain-specific causal-explanatory frameworks: The role of insides and immanence. Cognitive Development, 20(1), 137–158.Google Scholar
Grace, S. A., Toh, W. L., Buchanan, B., Castle, D. J., & Rossell, S. L. (2019). Impaired recognition of negative facial emotions in body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 25(8), 884–889.Google Scholar
Greenberg, G. (2013). The book of woe: The DSM and the unmaking of psychiatry. Blue Rider Press.Google Scholar
Greif, M. L., Kemler Nelson, D. G., Keil, F. C., & Gutierrez, F. (2006). What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information. Psychological Science, 17(6), 455–459.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (1993). Functional analysis and proper functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(3), 409–422.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (2002). What is innateness? Monist, 85(1), 70–85.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (2004). Is emotion a natural kind? In Solomon, R. C. (ed.), Thinking about feeling: Contemporary philosophers on emotions (pp. 233–249). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E., & Machery, E. (2008). Innateness, canalization and “biologicizing the mind.” Philosophical Psychology, 21(3), 397–414.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E., & Stotz, K. (2008). Experimental philosophy of science. Philosophy Compass, 3(3), 507–521.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E., Machery, E., & Linquist, S. (2009). The vernacular concept of innateness. Mind & Language, 24(5), 605–630.Google Scholar
Gross, C. G. (2002). Genealogy of the “grandmother cell.” The Neuroscientist, 8(5), 512–518.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1991). A tradition of natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61(1–2), 109–126.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. In Sperber, D., Premack, D., and Premack, A. J. (eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 351–394). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, U., & Harris, A. J. L. (2014). What does it mean to be biased: Motivated reasoning and rationality. In Ross, B. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 61. The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 41–102). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007) The moral mind: How five sets of innate moral intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., and Stich, S. (eds.), The innate mind (pp. 367–392). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1997). Conceptual combination. In Lamberts, K. and Shanks, D. R. (eds.), Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 135–162). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. In Ross, B. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 79–113). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1982). Conceptual role semantics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 23(2), 242–256.Google Scholar
Harris, C., Rasmussen, A., & Berntsen, D. (2014). The functions of autobiographical memory: An integrative approach. Memory, 22(5), 559–581.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. (2000). Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be? Noûs, 34(1), 31–55.Google Scholar
Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., Vann, S. D., & Maguire, E. A. (2007). Patients with hippocampal amnesia cannot imagine new experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(5), 1726–1731.Google Scholar
Haugeland, J. (1998). Mind embodied and embedded. In Haugeland, J. (ed.), Having thought: Essays in the metaphysics of mind (pp. 207–237). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in the motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307.Google Scholar
Heil, J. (1978). Traces of things past. Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 60–72.Google Scholar
Held, B. (2017). The distinction between psychological kinds and natural kinds revisited: Can updated natural-kind theory help clinical psychological science and beyond meet psychology’s philosophical challenges? Review of General Psychology, 21(1), 82–94.Google Scholar
Hermer, L., & Spelke, E. (1996). Modularity and development: The case of spatial reorientation. Cognition, 61(3), 195–232.Google Scholar
Hezel, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (2016). A theoretical review of cognitive biases and deficits in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Biological Psychology, 121(pt. B), 221–232.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Toward a topography of mind: An introduction to domain specificity. In Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 3–35). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoenig, K., Muller, C., Herrnberger, B., Sim, E. J., Spitzer, M., Ehret, G., & Kiefer, M. (2011). Neuroplasticity of semantic representations for musical instruments in professional musicians. Neuroimage, 56(3), 1714–1725.Google Scholar
Hoenig, K., Sim, E.-J., Bochev, V., Herrnberger, B., & Kiefer, M. (2008) Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: Dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motion and motor-related areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(10), 1799–1814.Google Scholar
Hoerl, C. (2001). The phenomenology of episodic recall. In Hoerl, C. and McCormack, T. (eds.), Time and memory: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 315–338). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoerl, C. & McCormack, T. (2016). Making decisions about the future. In Michaelian, K., Klein, S. B., and Szpunar, K. K. (eds.), Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel (pp. 241–266). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2010). Simulation from schematics: Dorsal stream processing and the perception of implied motion. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2704–2709). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98(3), 377–389.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D., Peeters, A., & Segundo-Ortin, M., (2017). Cognitive ontology in flux: The possibility of protean brains. Philosophical Explorations, 20(2), 209–223.Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62(2), 169–200.Google Scholar
Irish, M., Addis, D. R., Hodges, J. R., & Piguet, O. (2012). Considering the role of semantic memory in episodic future thinking: evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 135(7), 2178–2191.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R., Rossell, S., Enticott, P., & Castle, D. (2013). Own-body perception in body dysmorphic disorder. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 18(6), 594–614.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
Keil, F.C. (1986). The acquisition of natural kind and artifact terms. In Demopoulos, W. and Marras, A. (eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition: Foundational issues (pp. 133–153). Ablex.Google Scholar
Keil, F.C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1996). The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds. In Sperber, , D., Premack, D. and Premack, A. J. (eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 235–267). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. L. (2019). Concepts in the brain: The view from cross-linguistic diversity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendig, C. (2015). Homologizing as kinding. In Kendig, C. (ed.), Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice (pp. 126–146). Routledge.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (1995). Two concepts of concept. Mind and Language, 10(4), 402–422.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (1998). Incommensurability in cognitive guise. Philosophical Psychology, 11(1), 29–43.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2001). Innateness and domain specificity. Philosophical Studies, 105(2), 191–210.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2002). Nature and nurture in cognition. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53(2), 251–272.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2007). Innate cognitive capacities. Mind and Language, 22(1), 92–115.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2011). The pitfalls of microphysical realism. Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 1156–1164.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2013). Natural categories and human kinds: Classification in the natural and social sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2016a). Innateness as a natural cognitive kind. Philosophical Psychology, 29(3), 319–333.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2016b). Mind-dependent kinds. Journal of Social Ontology, 2(2) 223–246.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2017). Crosscutting psycho-neural taxonomies: The case of episodic memory. Philosophical Explorations, 20(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2018). Natural kinds as nodes in causal networks. Synthese, 195(4), 1379–1396.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2020). Neural correlates without reduction: The case of the critical period. Synthese, 197(5), 1947–1959.Google Scholar
Khalidi, M. A. (2021). Etiological kinds. Philosophy of Science, 88(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1992). Multiple realization and the metaphysics of reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H., & Sullivan, J. A. (Eds.). (2014). Classifying psychopathology: Mental kinds and natural kinds. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984). Species. Philosophy of Science, 51(2), 308–333.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1997). The lives to come: The genetic revolution and human possibilities. Free Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1998). Marr’s computational theory of vision. Philosophy of Science, 55(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. In Busemeyer, J., Hastie, R., & Medin, D. L. (eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 32 (pp. 385–418). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211–228.Google Scholar
Klein, C. (2012). Cognitive ontology and region- versus network-oriented analyses. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 952–960.Google Scholar
Klein, S. B. (2013). Making the case that episodic recollection is attributable to operations occurring at retrieval rather than to content stored in a dedicated subsystem of long-term memory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
Klein, S. B. (2015). What memory is. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109(2), 306–329.Google Scholar
Knobe, J., & Samuels, R. (2013). Thinking like a scientist: Innateness as a case study. Cognition, 126(1), 72–86.Google Scholar
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (1993). Inductive inference and its natural ground. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (1994). Naturalism: Both metaphysical and epistemological. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 19(1), 39–52 (reprinted in Kornblith, H. (2014). A naturalistic epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.Google Scholar
Kwan, D., Craver, C. F., Green, L., Myerson, J., Boyer, P., & Rosenbaum, S. (2012). Future decision-making without episodic mental time travel. Hippocampus, 22(6), 1215–1219.Google Scholar
Kwan, D., Craver, C. F., Green, L., Myerson, J., Gao, F., Black, S. E., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2015). Cueing the personal future to reduce discounting in intertemporal choice: Is episodic prospection necessary? Hippocampus, 25(4), 432–443.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts: CoreReadings (pp. 3–81). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2001). The poverty of the stimulus argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52(2), 217–276.Google Scholar
Lebois, L. A. M., Wilson‐Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context‐dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognitive Science, 39(8): 1764–1801.Google Scholar
Lello, L., Avery, S. G., Tellier, L., Vazquez, A. I., Campos, G., & Hsu, S. D. H. (2018). Accurate genomic prediction of human height. Genetics, 210(2), 477–497.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J. (2013). Essence and natural kinds: When science meets preschooler intuition. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 4, 108–166.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(4), 343–377.Google Scholar
Li, P., Dunham, Y., & Carey, S. (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58(4), 487–524.Google Scholar
Linquist, S., Machery, E., Griffiths, P. E., & Stotz, K. (2011). Exploring the folkbiological conception of human nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1563), 444–453.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K., Wager, T., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(3), 121–143.Google Scholar
Lisman, J. (2007). Integrative comments persistence: In search of molecular persistence. In Roediger, H., Dudai, Y., and Fitzpatrick, S. (eds.), Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 203–208). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, S., Brooks, N. B., & Spelke, E. S. (2019). Origins of the concepts cause, cost, and goal in prereaching infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17747–17752.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Ramirez, S., & Tonegawa, S. (2014). Inception of a false memory by optogenetic manipulation of a hippocampal memory engram. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 369(1633), 20130142.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. (2003). Our changeable memories: Legal and practical implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–234.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric annals, 25(12), 720–725.Google Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2006). The four-category ontology: A metaphysical foundation for natural science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D. (2016). Ontological choices and the value-free ideal. Erkenntnis, 81, 1253–1272.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(54), 1–13.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: Activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 141(1), 170–186.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., Rahman, R. A., Boroditsky, L., & Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11), 930–944.Google Scholar
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2005). Concepts are not a natural kind. Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 444–467.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2007). Concept empiricism: A methodological critique. Cognition, 104(1), 19–46.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maher, B. A. (1988). Anomalous experience and delusional thinking: The logic of explanations. In Oltmanns, T. F. and Maher, B. A. (eds.), Delusional beliefs (pp. 15–33). Wiley.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 941–958.Google Scholar
Mahr, J. B., & Csibra, G. (2018). Why do we remember? The communicative function of episodic memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, 1–16.Google Scholar
Majid, A. (2002). Frames of reference and language concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 503–504.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114.Google Scholar
Mallon, R. (2003). Social construction, social roles, and stability. In Schmitt, F. (ed.), Socializing metaphysics: The nature of social reality (pp. 327–354). Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Mallon, R., & Weinberg, J. M. (2006). Innateness as closed process invariance. Philosophy of Science, 73(3), 323–344.Google Scholar
Mameli, M. (2008). On innateness: The clutter hypothesis and the cluster hypothesis. Journal of Philosophy, 105(12), 719–736.Google Scholar
Mameli, M., & Bateson, P. E. (2006). Innateness and the sciences. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 155–188.Google Scholar
Mameli, M., & Bateson, P. E. (2011). An evaluation of the concept of innateness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1563), 436–443.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, D. (Ed.) (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587–604.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B., & Deutscher, M. (1966). Remembering. The Philosophical Review, 75(2), 161–196.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, J. (2015a). Reconceiving conceptual vehicles: Lessons from semantic dementia. Philosophical Psychology, 28(3), 337–354.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, J. (2015b). The brain’s heterogeneous functional landscape. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 1010–1022.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, J. & Machery, E. (2012). Philosophical issues about concepts. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, 3(2), 265–279.Google Scholar
McKone, E., Kanwisher, N., & Duchaine, B. C. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 8–15.Google Scholar
McGeer, V. (2015). Mind-making practices: The social infrastructure of self-knowing agency and responsibility. Philosophical Explorations, 18(2), 259–281.Google Scholar
McIntosh, A. R. (2004). Contexts and catalysts: A resolution of the localization and integration of function in the brain. Neuroinformatics, 2(2), 175–182.Google Scholar
McKone, E. Kanwisher, N., & Duchaine, B.C. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 8–15.Google Scholar
McLean, B., Mattiske, J., & Balzan, R. (2017). Association of the jumping to conclusions and evidence integration biases with delusions in psychosis: A detailed meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 43(2), 344–354.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (2017). Confirmation bias: Myside bias. In Pohl, R. F. (ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 99–114). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar
Michaelian, K. (2011a). Generative memory. Philosophical Psychology, 24(3), 323–342.Google Scholar
Michaelian, K. (2011b). Is memory a natural kind? Memory Studies, 4(2), 170–189.Google Scholar
Michaelian, K. (2016). Mental time travel: Episodic memory and our knowledge of the personal past. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1843/1882). A system of logic (8th edition). Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1989). In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 288–302.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1999). Historical kinds and the "special sciences.” Philosophical Studies, 95(1/2), 45–65.Google Scholar
Morris, R. G. M. (2007). Integrative comments: Distinctions and dilemmas. In Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y., and Fitzpatrick, S. M. (eds.), Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 29–34). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mufaddel, A., Osman, O. T., Almugaddam, F., & Jafferany, M. (2013). A review of body dysmorphic disorder and its presentation in different clinical settings. The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders, 15(4), PCC.12r01464.Google Scholar
Mugg, J. (2016). The dual-process turn: How recent defenses of dual-process theories of reasoning fail. Philosophical Psychology, 29(2), 300–309.Google Scholar
Mugg, J., & Khalidi, M. A. (2021). Self-reflexive cognitive bias. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
Mundy, M., & Sadusky, A. (2014). Abnormalities in visual processing amongst students with body image concerns. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 39–48.Google Scholar
Munro, G. D., & Stansbury, J. A. (2009). The dark side of self-affirmation: Confirmation bias and illusory correlation in response to threatening information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1143–1153.Google Scholar
Murphy, D. (2006). Psychiatry in the scientific image. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.Google Scholar
Nadel, L., Samsonovich, A., Ryan, L., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Multiple trace theory of human memory: computational, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological results. Hippocampus, 10(4), 352–368.Google Scholar
Nader, K., & Hardt, O. (2009). A single standard for memory: The case for reconsolidation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(3), 224–234.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Del Pinal, G. D. (2016). Mapping the mind: Bridge laws and the psycho-neural interface. Synthese, 193(2), 637–657.Google Scholar
Neander, K. (1991). Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 168–184.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (2007). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. ACM Turing Award Lectures, 19(3), 113–126.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1996). Hempel’s paradox and Wason’s selection task: Logical and psychological puzzles of confirmation. Thinking and Reasoning, 2(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.Google Scholar
Oldham, J., Hollander, E., & Skodol, A. (Eds.) (1996). Impulsivity and compulsivity. American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
Oosthuizen, P., Lambert, T., & Castle, D. J. (1998). Dysmorphic concern: Prevalence and associations with clinical variables. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(1), 129–132.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 3–36.Google Scholar
Oreg, S., & Bayazit, M. (2009). Prone to bias: Development of a bias taxonomy from an individual differences perspective. Review of General Psychology, 13(3), 175–193.Google Scholar
Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In Pohl, R. F. (ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Partanen, E., Kujala, T., Tervaniemi, M., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Prenatal music exposure induces long-term neural effects. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e78946.Google Scholar
Perry, L. K., & Lupyan, G. (2013). What the online manipulation of linguistic activity can tell us about language and thought. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 122.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. (1996/2005). The broken mirror: Understanding and treating body dysmorphic disorder (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, K., Pinto, A., Hart, A., Coles, M., Eisen, J., Menard, W., & Rasmmussen, S. (2012). A comparison of insight in body dysmorphic disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46(10), 1293–1299.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. A. (1996/2005). The broken mirror: Understanding and treating Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. A., Wilhelm, S., Koran, L. M., Didie, E. R., Fallon, B. A., Feusner, J., & Stein, D. J. (2010). Body dysmorphic disorder: Some key issues for DSM‐V. Depression and anxiety, 27(6), 573–591.Google Scholar
PhilPapers Survey (2009). https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl (accessed March 9, 2020).Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1995). The Language instinct: How the mind creates language. Harper.Google Scholar
Pober, J. M. (2013). Addiction is not a natural kind. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4, 1–11.Google Scholar
Pohl, R. F. (2017). Cognitive illusions. In Pohl, R. F. (ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory(2nd edition) (pp. 3–21). Routledge.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. (2012). The future of fMRI in cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage, 62(2), 1216–1220.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Halchenko, Y. O., & Hanson, S. J. (2009). Decoding the large-scale structure of brain function by classifying mental states across individuals. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1364–1372.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). From brain maps to cognitive ontologies: Informatics and the search for mental structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 587–612.Google Scholar
Polger, T. W. (2002). Putnam’s intuition. Philosophical Studies, 109(2), 143–170.Google Scholar
Polger, T. W. (2009). Evaluating the evidence for multiple realization. Synthese, 167(3), 457–472.Google Scholar
Polimeni, J., & Reiss, J. P. (2003). Evolutionary perspectives on schizophrenia. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(1), 34–39.Google Scholar
Pöyhönen, S. (2013). Carving the mind by its joints: Culture-bound psychiatric disorders as natural kinds. In Miłkowski, M.and Talmont-Kaminski, K. (eds.), Regarding the mind, naturally: Naturalist approaches to the sciences of the mental (pp. 30–48). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pöyhönen, H. S. (2015). Memory as a cognitive kind: Brains, remembering dyads, and exograms. In Kendig, C. (ed.), Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice (pp. 145–156). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Price, C., & Friston, K. (2005) Functional ontologies for cognition: The systematic definition of structure and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 262–275.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1974). Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy, 70(19), 699–711.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language and reality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quian Quiroga, R., Reddy, L., Kreiman, G., Koch, C., & Fried, I. (2005). Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature, 435(7045), 1102–1107.Google Scholar
Rabin, G. O. (2018). Grounding orthodoxy and the layered conception. In Bliss, R. and Priest, G. (eds.), Reality and its structure: Essays in fundamentality (pp. 37–49). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radick, G. (2012). Should “heredity” and “inheritance” be biological terms? William Bateson’s change of mind as a historical and philosophical problem. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 714–724.Google Scholar
Reines, F. M., & Prinz, J. (2009). Reviving Whorf: The return of linguistic relativity. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 1022–1032.Google Scholar
Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 21(1), 89–102.Google Scholar
Rajsic, J., Wilson, D. E., & Pratt, J. (2015). Confirmation bias in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1353–1364.Google Scholar
Reese, H. E., McNally, R. J., & Wilhelm, S. (2010). Facial asymmetry detection in patients with body dysmorphic disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(9), 936–940.Google Scholar
Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and stereotypes. Cognition, 15(1–3), 237–262.Google Scholar
Rey, G. (1985). Concepts and conceptions: A reply to Smith, Medin, and Rips. Cognition, 19(3), 297–303.Google Scholar
Rivera, R., & Borda, T. (2001). The etiology of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 31(9), 559–563.Google Scholar
Robins, S. K. (2016a). Misremembering. Philosophical Psychology, 29(3), 432–447.Google Scholar
Robins, S. K. (2016b). Optogenetics and the mechanism of false memory. Synthese, 193(5), 1561–1583.Google Scholar
Robins, S. (2016c). Representing the past: Memory traces and the causal theory of memory. Philosophical Studies, 173(11), 2993–3013.Google Scholar
Robins, S. (2017). Memory traces. In Bernecker, S., & Michaelian, K. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of memory (pp. 76–87). Routledge.Google Scholar
Robins, S., & Schulz, A. (forthcoming). Episodic memory, simulated future planning, and their evolution.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 28–49). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Simpson, C., & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 491–502.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. A. (1975). An argument for the logical notion of a memory trace. Philosophy of Science, 42(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Rosen, J. (1995). The nature of body dysmorphic disorder and treatment with cognitive behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioural Practice, 2(1), 143–166.Google Scholar
Ross, L. N. (2020). Causal concepts in biology: How pathways differ from mechanisms and why it matters. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(1), 131–158.Google Scholar
Rupert, R. D. (2013). Memory, natural kinds, and cognitive extension; or, Martians don’t remember, and cognitive science Is not about cognition. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(1), 25–47Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (1998). Evolutionary psychology and the massive modularity thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49(4), 575–602.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2002). Innateness in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 136–141.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2007). Is innateness a confused notion? In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., and Stich, S. (eds.), The innate mind: Foundations and the future (pp. 17–36). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2009a). Delusion as a natural kind. In Broome, M. and Bortolotti, L. (eds.), Psychiatry as cognitive neuroscience: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 49–79). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. (2009b). The magical number two, plus or minus: Dual process theory as a theory of cognitive kinds. In Evans, J. St. B. and Frankish, K. E. (eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 129–146). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, R., & Ferreira, M. (2010). Why don’t concepts constitute a natural kind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 222–223.Google Scholar
Sander, D., Grafman, J., & Zalla, T. (2003). The human amygdala: An evolved system for relevance detection. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 14(4), 303–316.Google Scholar
Saxe, R. (2010). The right temporo-parietal junction: A specific brain region for thinking about thoughts. In Leslie, A. and German, T. (eds.), Handbook of theory of mind. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Saxe, R., Brett, M., & Kanwisher, N. (2006). Divide and conquer: A defense of functional localizers. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1088–1096.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the mind, and the past. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L. (2007). Memory: Delineating the core. In Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 23–28). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2009). On the nature of medial temporal lobe contributions to the constructive simulation of future events. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1245–1253.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). The prospective brain: Remembering the past to imagine the future. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657–661.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., Hassabis, D., Martin, V. C., Spreng, R. N., & Szpunar, K. K. (2012). The future of memory: Remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron, 76(4), 677–694.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Nous, 37(3), 498–517.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1998). Genes, behavior, and developmental emergentism: One process, indivisible? Philosophy of Science, 65(2), 209–252.Google Scholar
Schectman, M. (1994). The truth about memory. Philosophical Psychology, 7(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Scholz, J., Triantafyllou, C., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Brown, E. N., & Saxe, R. (2009). Distinct regions of right temporo-parietal junction are selective for theory of mind and exogenous attention. PloS ONE, 4(3), e4869.Google Scholar
Sera, M. D., Elieff, C., Forbes, J., Burch, M. C., & Dubois, D. P. (2002). When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 377–397.Google Scholar
Shagrir, O., & Bechtel, W. (2017). Marr’s computational level and delineating phenomena. In Kaplan, D. M. (ed.), Explanation and integration in mind and brain science (pp. 190–214). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. A. (2004). The mind incarnate. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2003). Does externalism entail the anomalism of the mental? Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 201–213.Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2012a). New thinking, innateness, and inherited representation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2234–2244.Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2012b). Genetic representation explains the cluster of innateness-related properties. Mind and Language, 27(4), 466–493.Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2013). Inherited representations are read in development. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2018). Representation in cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1969/1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd edition). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–191). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, S., Lombrozo, T., & Malt, B. (2007). Ontological commitments and domain specific categorisation. In Robert, M. J. (ed.) Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 105–129). Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E., Medin, D. L., & Rips, L. J. (1984). A psychological approach to concepts: Comments on Rey’s “concepts and stereotypes.” Cognition, 17(3), 265–274.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1999). The multiple realizability argument against reductionism. Philosophy of Science, 66(4), 542–564.Google Scholar
Solomon, G. E. A. (1990). Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. American Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 495–517.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind (pp. 277–311). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Nativism, empiricism, and the development of knowledge. In Lerner, R. M. (ed.) Handbook of child psychology: Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 275–340). Wiley.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A.(eds.) Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 39–67). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spunt, R. P., & Adolphs, R. (2017). A new look at domain specificity: Insights from social neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(9), 559–567.Google Scholar
Spunt, R. P., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Dissociating modality-specific and supramodal neural systems for action understanding. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(10), 3575–3583.Google Scholar
Stanley, M. L., Henne, P., Yang, B. W., & De Brigard, F. (2020). Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Political Behavior, 42(3), 891–913.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2010) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2016) The comprehensive assessment of rational thinking, Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 23–34Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2008). The development of rational thought: A taxonomy of heuristics and biases. In Kail, R. V. (ed.), Advances in child development and behavior: Vol. 36 (pp. 251–285). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2020). Intelligence and rationality. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd edition) (pp. 1106–1139). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259–264.Google Scholar
Stein, E. (1996). Without good reason: The rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stein, E. (1997). Can we be justified in believing that humans are irrational? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57(3), 545–565.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2003). Thought in a hostile world: The evolution of human cognition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P.E. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to the philosophy of biology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2009) Domain-generality versus domain-specificity of creativity. In Meusburger, P., Funke, J., and Wunder, E. (eds.) Milieus of creativity: Knowledge and space, Vol. 2 (pp. 25–38). Springer.Google Scholar
Stinson, C. (2016). Mechanisms in psychology: Ripping nature at its seams. Synthese, 193(5), 1585–1614.Google Scholar
Stich, S. P. (1975). Introduction: The idea of innateness. In Stich, S. P. (ed.), Innate ideas (pp. 1–22). University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stich, S. P. (1985). From folk psychology to cognitive science: The case against belief. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123(2), 133–167.Google Scholar
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299–313.Google Scholar
Suddendorf, T., Addis, D. R., & Corballis, M. C. (2009). Mental time travel and the shaping of the human mind. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1317–1324.Google Scholar
Suppes, P., Han, B., Epelboim, J., & Lu, I. Z. L. (1999). Invariance of brain-wave representations of simple visual images and their names. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(25), 14658–14663.Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. (2010). Episodic future thought: An emerging concept. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 142–162.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. F. (1991). Are memory traces localized or distributed? Neuropsychologia, 29(6), 571–582.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. F. (2007). Persistence: Discrepancies between behaviors and brains. In Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y., and Fitzpatrick, S. M. (eds.), Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 199–201). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toh, W., Rossell, S., & Castle, D. (2009). Body dysmorphic disorder: A review of current nosological issues and associated cognitive deficits. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 5(4), 261–270.Google Scholar
Toh, W. L., Castle, D. J., Mountjoy, R. L., Buchanan, B., Farhall, J., & Rossell, S. L. (2017). Insight in body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) relative to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and psychotic disorders: Revisiting this issue in light of DSM-5. Comprehensive psychiatry, 77, 100–108.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory and Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Assessing the development of rationality. In Markovits, H. (ed.), The developmental psychology of reasoning and decision-making (pp. 7–35). Psychological Press.Google Scholar
Tsou, J. Y. (2013). Depression and suicide are natural kinds: Implications for physician-assisted suicide. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(5–6), 461–470.Google Scholar
Tsou, J. Y. (2016). Natural kinds, psychiatric classification and the history of the DSM. History of Psychiatry, 27(4), 406–424.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In Tulving, E. and Donaldson, W. (eds.), Organization of memory, (pp. 381–403). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 26(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (2007). Coding and representation: Searching for a home in the brain. In Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y., and Fitzpatrick, S. M. (eds.), Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 65–68). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., Schacter, D. L., McLachlan, D. R., & Moscovitch, M. (1988). Priming of semantic autobiographical knowledge: A case study of retrograde amnesia. Brain and Cognition, 8(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science: New Series, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252.Google Scholar
Van Brakel, J. (1995). Consciousness is not a natural kind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 269–270.Google Scholar
van Dam, W. O., van Dijk, M., Bekkering, H., & Rueschemeyer, S. A. (2012). Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human Brain Mapping, 33(10), 2322–2333.Google Scholar
van Dam, W. O., Brazil, I. A., Bekkering, H., & Rueschemeyer, S. A. (2014). Flexibility in embodied language processing: Context effects in lexical access. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 407–424.Google Scholar
Veale, D. (2004). Advances in a cognitive behavioural model of body dysmorphic disorder. Body Image, 1(1), 113–125.Google Scholar
Veale, D., & Riley, S. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the ugliest of them all? The psychopathology of mirror gazing in body dysmorphic disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(12), 1381–1393.Google Scholar
Venn, J. (1889/1907). The principles of empirical or inductive logic (2nd edition). Macmillan.Google Scholar
Waismeyer, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Gopnik, A. (2015). Causal learning from probabilistic events in 24‐month‐olds: An action measure. Developmental Science, 18(1), 175–182.Google Scholar
Wakefield, J. C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47(3), 373–388.Google Scholar
Wason, P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–140.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Different kinds of concepts and different kinds of words: What words do for human cognition. In Mareschal, D., Quinn, P. C., and Lea, S. E. G. (eds.), Oxford series in developmental cognitive neuroscience: The making of human concepts (pp. 99–129). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. M., & Mallon, R. (2008). Living with innateness (and environmental dependence too). Philosophical Psychology, 21(3), 415–424.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2007). Concept empiricism and the vehicles of thought. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(9–10), 156–183.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2009). The plurality of concepts. Synthese, 169(1), 145–173.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2011). The functional unity of special science kinds. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(2), 233–258.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2017a). An ideal disorder? Autism as a psychiatric kind. Philosophical Explorations, 20(2), 175–190.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2017b). The explanatory autonomy of cognitive models. In Kaplan, D. M. (ed.), Explanation and integration in mind and brain science (pp. 44–69). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49–63.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (2005). Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity and commitment in language systems of the brain. Developmental Psychobiology, 46(3), 233–251.Google Scholar
Werning, M., & Cheng, S. (2017). Taxonomy and unity of memory. In Bernecker, S. and Michaelian, K. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of memory (pp. 7–20). Routledge.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. (1840/1847). The philosophy of the inductive sciences (2nd edition). John W. Parker.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2007). Is “remember” a universal human concept? “Memory” and culture. In Amberber, M. (ed.), Memory in language and thought (pp. 13–39). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Simmons, W. K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Contextual processing of abstract concepts reveals neural representations of non-linguistic semantic content. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(6), 920–935.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1999). Generativity, entrenchment, innateness, and evolution: Philosophy, evolutionary biology, and conceptual foundations of science. In Hardcastle, V. G. (ed.), Where biology meets psychology: Philosophical essays (pp. 139–179). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104(19), 7780–7785.Google Scholar
Wiser, M. (1988). The differentiation of heat and temperature: History of science and novice-expert shift. In Strauss, S. (ed.), Ontogeny, phylogeny, and historical development. Ablex.Google Scholar
Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L. (eds.), Mental models (pp 267–297). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253–265.Google Scholar
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135–163.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2017). Explanation in neurobiology: An interventionist perspective. In Kaplan, D. M. (ed.), Explanation and integration in mind and brain science (pp. 70–100). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, T. S., Moritz, S., Cuttler, C., & Whitman, J. C. (2006). The contribution of a cognitive bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE) to delusions in schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28(4), 605–617.Google Scholar
Yee, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(4), 1015–1027.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, P., & Pöyhönen, S. (2015). Addiction-as-kind hypothesis. International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, 4(1), 21–25.Google Scholar
Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2009). Innocent intentions: A correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity. Neuropsychologia, 47(10), 2065–2072.Google Scholar
Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2004) Face perception: Domain specific not process specific. Neuron, 44(5), 889–898.Google Scholar
Zachar, P. (2000). Psychiatric disorders are not natural kinds. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology, 7(3) 167–182.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×