Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:57:07.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replies to Lombrozo, Piccinini, and Poirier and Beaulac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2011

Édouard Machery
Édouard Machery*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Book Symposium/Tribune du livre
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 195 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2011

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

Ahn, W., and Kim, N. S. 2008 “Causal Theories of Mental Disorder Concepts.” Psychological Science Agenda 22: 3–8.Google Scholar
Allen, S. W., and Brooks, L. R. 1991 “Specializing the Operation of an Explicit Rule.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, G. D., and Converse, S. A. 1986 “Illness Representations: A Prototype Approach.” Health Psychology 5: 95–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmichael, C., and Hayes, B. K. 2001 “Prior Knowledge and Exemplar Encoding in Children’s Concept Acquisition.” Child Development 72: 1071–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. 1993 Associative Engines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, I. M., and Quillian, M. R. 1969 “Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory.” Journal of verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., and Tsivkin, S. 1999 “Sources of Mathematical Thinking: Behavioral and Brain-Imaging Evidence.” Science 284: 970–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. 2008 “Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition.” Annual Review of Psychology 59: 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., and Frankish, K., Eds. 2009 In Two Minds. Dual Processes and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1975 The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1998 Concepts, Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 2008 LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., and Regier, T. P. 1996 “How Do We Tell an Association from a Rule?” Psychological Bulletin 119: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. 1997 “What Memory Is For.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, T. L., Sanborn, A. N., Canini, K. R., and Navarro, D. J. 2008 “Categorization as Nonparametric Bayesian Density Estimation.” In The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Rational Models of Cognition. Edited by Oaksford, M. and Chater, N., pp. 303–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. 1979 “Polymorphous Concepts in Semantic Memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. 1981 “An Investigation of the Nature of Abstract Concepts.” Memory and Cognition 9: 149–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B. K., and Kearney, L. 2010 “Defending the Concept of ‘Concepts’.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, W. 1973 “The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings.” In New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Edited by Baily, C. J. & Shuy, R., pp. 340–373. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lombrozo, T. 2009 “Explanation and Categorization: How ‘Why?’” Informs “What?” Cognition 110: 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2005 “Concepts Are Not a Natural Kind.” Philosophy of Science 72: 444–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2006 “How to Split Concepts. Reply To Piccinini and Scott.” Philosophy of Science 73: 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2007 “100 Years of Psychology of Concepts: The Theoretical Notion of Concept and Its Operationalization.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38: 63–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machery, E. 2010 “The Heterogeneity of Knowledge Representation and the Elimination of Concept.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C. 1989 “An On-Line Investigation Of Prototype And Exemplar Strategies In Classification.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15: 539–555.Google ScholarPubMed
Margolis, E., and Laurence, S. 2010 “Concepts and Theoretical Unification.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 219–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H. 2010 “How to Cut a Concept? Review of Doing without Concepts by Edouard Machery.” Biology and Philosophy 25: 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L., and Medin, D. L. 1985 “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence.” Psychological Review 92: 289–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, G., Eva, K., Brooks, L., and Hamstra, S.. 2006 “Expertise in Medicine and Surgery.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, Edited by Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., and Hoffman, R. R. , pp. 339–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. 1992 “Exemplar-Based Approach to Relating Categorization, Identification, and Recognition.” In Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition, Edited by Ashby, F. G., pp. 363–393. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1992 A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piccinini, G., and Scott, S. 2006 “Splitting Concepts.” Philosophy of Science 73: 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehder, B. 2006 “When Causality and Similarity Compete in Category-Based Property Induction.” Memory and Cognition 34: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehder, B., and Murphy, G. L. 2003 “A Knowledge-Resonance (KRES) Model of Category Learning.” Psychological Bulletin & Review 10: 789–794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rey, G. 1983 “Concepts and Stereotypes.” Cognition 15: 237–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rey, G. 1985 “Concepts and Conceptions: A Reply to Smith, Medin and Rips. Cognition 19: 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., and Mervis, C. B. 1975 “Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupert, R. D. Forthcoming “Concepts and Scientific Unity.” Metascience.Google Scholar
Samuels, R. 2009 “The Magical Number Two, Plus or Minus: Dual Process Theory as a Theory of Cognitive Kinds.” In In two minds: Dual process and beyond. Edited by Evans, J. & Frankish, K., pp. 129–146. New York: Oxford University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., and O’Connor, C. 1987 “Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 1061–1086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. E., Patalano, A. L., and Jonides, J. 1998 “Alternative Strategies of Categorization.” Cognition 65: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. D., and Minda, J. P. 1998 “Prototypes in the Mist: The Early Epochs of Category Learning.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24: 1411–1436.Google Scholar
Strohminger, N., and Moore, B. W. 2010 “Banishing the Thought.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 225–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temmerman, R. 2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J., and Allman, J. 2008 “Moral Intuition: Its Neural Substrates and Normative Significance.” Journal of Physiology-Paris 101: 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar