Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:29:34.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causing Trouble: Theories of Reference and Theory of Mind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

J. Robert Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Michael and MacLeod’s paper on theories of reference for intentional concepts addresses neglected connections between theories of reference and Theory of Mind debates. Unfortunately, their paper neither shows the negative effects of descriptivism on theories of reference for intentional concepts nor provides an adequate picture of how the sort of theory they advocate might explain either the reference of intentional concepts or the puzzles of development on which they focus. In this article, I give reasons to think that the prospects are dim for applying causal approaches to the major topics raised by Michael and MacLeod.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 119 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The author wishes to thank Dan Weiskopf for comments on this article.

References

Armstrong, David. 1999. “The Causal Theory of the Mind.” In Mind and Cognition: An Anthology, 2nd ed., ed. Lycan, William G., 20–27. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan. 1985. Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan 1991. “Knowledge Acquisition or Conceptual Change?” In The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition, ed. Carey, Susan and Gelman, Rochel, 133–69. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan 2009. The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 1981. Designation. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, Richard. 1989. “Russelling Causal Theories of Reference.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12:108–18.Google Scholar
Keil, Frank. 1989. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kroon, Frederick W. 1985. “Theoretical Terms and the Causal View of Reference.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (2): 143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroon, Frederick W. 1987. “Causal Descriptivism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/00048408712342731.Google Scholar
Laurence, Stephen, and Margolis, Eric. 1999. “Concepts and Cognitive Science.” In Concepts: Core Readings, ed. Margolis, Eric and Laurence, Stephen, 3–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Machery, Edouard. 2009. Doing without Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, John, and MacLeod, Miles. 2013. “Applying the Causal Theory of Reference to Intentional Concepts.” Philosophy of Science 80 (2): 212–30. doi:10.1086/670328.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth. 2000. On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perner, Josef. 1998. “Room for Concept Development?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1): 82–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rey, Georges. 1983. “Concepts and Stereotypes.” Cognition 15:237–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed