Are concepts a natural kind? On concept eliminativism

G. Löhr
{"title":"Are concepts a natural kind? On concept eliminativism","authors":"G. Löhr","doi":"10.33735/phimisci.2023.9632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nConcept eliminativists argue that we should eliminate the term ‘concept’ from our vocabulary in psychology because there is no single natural kind that is picked out by it. I argue that the most developed version of concept eliminativism by Edouard Machery depends on the assumption that concepts are defined as stable and context-independent bodies of information. It is this assumption that leads Machery to eliminativism and it is an assumption we have reason to reject. Another assumption that leads to the eliminativist conclusion and that we have reason to reject is that the type of content represented in long-term memory is the relevant property based on which we should individuate certain natural kinds in cognitive psychology. Finally, I argue that certain pieces of information are functionally integrated enough to meet the conditions for being a natural kind.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":340575,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and the Mind Sciences","volume":"319 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and the Mind Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2023.9632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Concept eliminativists argue that we should eliminate the term ‘concept’ from our vocabulary in psychology because there is no single natural kind that is picked out by it. I argue that the most developed version of concept eliminativism by Edouard Machery depends on the assumption that concepts are defined as stable and context-independent bodies of information. It is this assumption that leads Machery to eliminativism and it is an assumption we have reason to reject. Another assumption that leads to the eliminativist conclusion and that we have reason to reject is that the type of content represented in long-term memory is the relevant property based on which we should individuate certain natural kinds in cognitive psychology. Finally, I argue that certain pieces of information are functionally integrated enough to meet the conditions for being a natural kind.
概念是自然的吗?论概念消除主义
概念消除主义者认为,我们应该从心理学词汇中消除“概念”一词,因为它没有挑出单一的自然种类。我认为,爱德华·马赫利(edward Machery)提出的概念消除主义最发达的版本,依赖于这样一个假设:概念被定义为稳定的、与上下文无关的信息体。正是这个假设导致了Machery的消除主义,这是一个我们有理由拒绝的假设。另一个导致排除主义结论的假设是,我们有理由拒绝长期记忆中所表现的内容类型是相关的属性,在此基础上,我们应该对认知心理学中的某些自然类型进行个体化。最后,我认为某些信息片段在功能上集成得足以满足成为自然类型的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信