Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:34:21.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carving nature at its joints using a knife called concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Justin J. Couchman ,
Joseph Boomer ,
Mariana V. C. Coutinho  and
J. David Smith
Justin J. Couchman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. jjc38@buffalo.edujboomer@buffalo.edumvc5@buffalo.edupsysmith@buffalo.edu
Joseph Boomer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. jjc38@buffalo.edujboomer@buffalo.edumvc5@buffalo.edupsysmith@buffalo.edu
Mariana V. C. Coutinho
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. jjc38@buffalo.edujboomer@buffalo.edumvc5@buffalo.edupsysmith@buffalo.edu
J. David Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. jjc38@buffalo.edujboomer@buffalo.edumvc5@buffalo.edupsysmith@buffalo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

That humans can categorize in different ways does not imply that there are qualitatively distinct underlying natural kinds or that the field of concepts splinters. Rather, it implies that the unitary goal of forming concepts is important enough that it receives redundant expression in cognition. Categorization science focuses on commonalities involved in concept learning. Eliminating “concept” makes this more difficult.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 207 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Ashby, F. G. & Maddox, W. T. (2005) Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology 56:149–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, M. & Homa, D. (2003) As easy to memorize as they are to classify: The 5-4 categories and the category advantage. Memory and Cognition 31:1293–1301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couchman, J. J., Coutinho, M. V. C. & Smith, J. D. (in press) Rules and resemblance: Their changing balance in the category learning of humans (Homo sapiens) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.Google Scholar
Homa, D., Sterling, S. & Trepel, L. (1981) Limitations of exemplar-based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 7:418–39.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002) The big book of concepts. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. D. & Minda, J. P. (1998) Prototypes in the mist: The early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24:1411–36.Google Scholar
Smith, J. D. & Minda, J. P. (2000) Thirty categorization results in search of a model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26:3–27.Google ScholarPubMed