{"title":"Millikan’s consistency testers and the cultural evolution of concepts","authors":"N. Shea","doi":"10.1075/elt.00048.she","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Ruth Millikan has hypothesised that human cognition contains ‘consistency testers’. Consistency testers check\n whether different judgements a thinker makes about the same subject matter agree or conflict. Millikan’s suggestion is that, where\n the same concept has been applied to the world via two routes, and the two judgements that result are found to be inconsistent,\n that makes the thinker less inclined to apply those concepts in those ways in the future.\n If human cognition does indeed include such a capacity, its operation will be an important determinant of how\n people use concepts. It will have a major impact on which concepts they deploy and which means of application (conceptions) they\n rely on. Since consistency testers are a selection mechanism at the heart of conceptual thinking, they would be crucial to\n understanding how concepts are selected – why some are retained and proliferate and others die out. Hence, whether consistency\n testers for concepts exist, and how they operate, is an important question for those seeking to understand the cultural evolution\n of concepts, and of the words we use to express them.","PeriodicalId":170314,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Linguistic Theory","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00048.she","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Ruth Millikan has hypothesised that human cognition contains ‘consistency testers’. Consistency testers check
whether different judgements a thinker makes about the same subject matter agree or conflict. Millikan’s suggestion is that, where
the same concept has been applied to the world via two routes, and the two judgements that result are found to be inconsistent,
that makes the thinker less inclined to apply those concepts in those ways in the future.
If human cognition does indeed include such a capacity, its operation will be an important determinant of how
people use concepts. It will have a major impact on which concepts they deploy and which means of application (conceptions) they
rely on. Since consistency testers are a selection mechanism at the heart of conceptual thinking, they would be crucial to
understanding how concepts are selected – why some are retained and proliferate and others die out. Hence, whether consistency
testers for concepts exist, and how they operate, is an important question for those seeking to understand the cultural evolution
of concepts, and of the words we use to express them.