Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:19:13.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: What's Wrong with the Syntactic Theory of Mind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

M. Frances Egan
M. Frances Egan*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stephen Stich has argued that psychological theories that instantiate his Syntactic Theory of Mind are to be preferred to content-based or representationalist theories, because the former can capture and explain a wider range of generalizations about cognitive processes than the latter. Stich's claims about the relative merits of the Syntactic Theory of Mind are unfounded. Not only is it false that syntactic theories can capture psychological generalizations that content-based theories cannot, but a large class of behavioral regularities, readily explained by content-based theories, appear to be beyond their explanatory reach.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 664 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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

†

I am grateful to Robert Matthews, Jerry Fodor, Ausonio Marras, and Ken Warmbrod for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Fodor, J. A. (1981), Representations. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1982), “Cognitive Science and the Twin-Earth Problem”, Notre Dame Journal of Symbolic Logic 23: 98–118.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1987), Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marras, A. (1987), “Critical Notice: Stephen Stich's From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief”, Philosophy of Science 54: 115–127.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980a), “Computation and Cognition: Issues in the Foundation of Cognitive Science”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980b), “Cognitive Representation and the Process-Architecture Distinction”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984), Computation and Cognition: Toward A Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (1985), “Critical Notice: S. P. Stich, From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 510–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. P. (1983), From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar