The theoretical indispensability of concepts

Machery denies the traditional view that concepts are constituents of thoughts, and he more provocatively argues that concepts should be eliminated from our best psychological taxonomy. I argue that the constituency view has much to recommend it (and is presupposed by much of his own theory), and th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Behavioral and brain sciences 2010-06, Vol.33 (2-3), p.228-229
Main Author: Weiskopf, Daniel A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive Science
Concept Formation
Humans
Memory
Psychological Theory
Visual perception
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3
container_end_page 229
container_issue 2-3
container_start_page 228
container_title The Behavioral and brain sciences
container_volume 33
creator Weiskopf, Daniel A.
description Machery denies the traditional view that concepts are constituents of thoughts, and he more provocatively argues that concepts should be eliminated from our best psychological taxonomy. I argue that the constituency view has much to recommend it (and is presupposed by much of his own theory), and that the evidence gives us grounds for pluralism, rather than eliminativism, about concepts.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0140525X10000506
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_954587543</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733475450</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0MtKw0AUBuBBFFurD-BGAi7cGJ37ZanVVqEgagV3wyQ5oalpEjMJ2Lc3obULXTibWfzfOXB-hE4JviKYqOtXTDgWVLwT3D2B5R4aEi5NSDQV-2jYx2GfD9CR98vecGEO0YBioTmneIgu5wsImgWUNTRZ7PIgK5LMV1B4F2V51qyDMg3isoihavwxOkhd7uFk-4_Q2-R-Pn4IZ0_Tx_HNLIyZ0U1IuUtUQhiLcKqTSCsjQErmlNaRIkRK4MAlURRHWiQgDKZGA3UJBaqMATZCF5u9VV1-tuAbu8p8DHnuCihbb013hlaCs3-lYox3UOBOnv-Sy7Kti-4MSyVTrC9Ud4psVFyX3teQ2qrOVq5eW4JtT-yfzruZs-3mNlpBspv4KbkD4QZkvoGvXe7qDysVU8LK6bOdT6Z3t4Jr-8K-AXu5iAY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2637310178</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The theoretical indispensability of concepts</title><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><creator>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><description>Machery denies the traditional view that concepts are constituents of thoughts, and he more provocatively argues that concepts should be eliminated from our best psychological taxonomy. I argue that the constituency view has much to recommend it (and is presupposed by much of his own theory), and that the evidence gives us grounds for pluralism, rather than eliminativism, about concepts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-525X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-1825</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X10000506</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20584420</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Cognitive Science ; Concept Formation ; Humans ; Memory ; Psychological Theory ; Visual perception</subject><ispartof>The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2010-06, Vol.33 (2-3), p.228-229</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20584420$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><title>The theoretical indispensability of concepts</title><title>The Behavioral and brain sciences</title><addtitle>Behav Brain Sci</addtitle><description>Machery denies the traditional view that concepts are constituents of thoughts, and he more provocatively argues that concepts should be eliminated from our best psychological taxonomy. I argue that the constituency view has much to recommend it (and is presupposed by much of his own theory), and that the evidence gives us grounds for pluralism, rather than eliminativism, about concepts.</description><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive Science</subject><subject>Concept Formation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Psychological Theory</subject><subject>Visual perception</subject><issn>0140-525X</issn><issn>1469-1825</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0MtKw0AUBuBBFFurD-BGAi7cGJ37ZanVVqEgagV3wyQ5oalpEjMJ2Lc3obULXTibWfzfOXB-hE4JviKYqOtXTDgWVLwT3D2B5R4aEi5NSDQV-2jYx2GfD9CR98vecGEO0YBioTmneIgu5wsImgWUNTRZ7PIgK5LMV1B4F2V51qyDMg3isoihavwxOkhd7uFk-4_Q2-R-Pn4IZ0_Tx_HNLIyZ0U1IuUtUQhiLcKqTSCsjQErmlNaRIkRK4MAlURRHWiQgDKZGA3UJBaqMATZCF5u9VV1-tuAbu8p8DHnuCihbb013hlaCs3-lYox3UOBOnv-Sy7Kti-4MSyVTrC9Ud4psVFyX3teQ2qrOVq5eW4JtT-yfzruZs-3mNlpBspv4KbkD4QZkvoGvXe7qDysVU8LK6bOdT6Z3t4Jr-8K-AXu5iAY</recordid><startdate>201006</startdate><enddate>201006</enddate><creator>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QG</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201006</creationdate><title>The theoretical indispensability of concepts</title><author>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive Science</topic><topic>Concept Formation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Psychological Theory</topic><topic>Visual perception</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Behavioral and brain sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weiskopf, Daniel A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The theoretical indispensability of concepts</atitle><jtitle>The Behavioral and brain sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Behav Brain Sci</addtitle><date>2010-06</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2-3</issue><spage>228</spage><epage>229</epage><pages>228-229</pages><issn>0140-525X</issn><eissn>1469-1825</eissn><abstract>Machery denies the traditional view that concepts are constituents of thoughts, and he more provocatively argues that concepts should be eliminated from our best psychological taxonomy. I argue that the constituency view has much to recommend it (and is presupposed by much of his own theory), and that the evidence gives us grounds for pluralism, rather than eliminativism, about concepts.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>20584420</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0140525X10000506</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0140-525X
ispartof The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2010-06, Vol.33 (2-3), p.228-229
issn 0140-525X
1469-1825
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_954587543
source Cambridge Journals Online
subjects Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive Science
Concept Formation
Humans
Memory
Psychological Theory
Visual perception
title The theoretical indispensability of concepts
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T20%3A54%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20theoretical%20indispensability%20of%20concepts&rft.jtitle=The%20Behavioral%20and%20brain%20sciences&rft.au=Weiskopf,%20Daniel%20A.&rft.date=2010-06&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=228&rft.epage=229&rft.pages=228-229&rft.issn=0140-525X&rft.eissn=1469-1825&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0140525X10000506&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733475450%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-24ad7d133b0f8db8795e663a788b71166e4e461720b85de590298e2ad2e2799e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2637310178&rft_id=info:pmid/20584420&rfr_iscdi=true