Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:19:48.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The function and representation of concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Sangeet S. Khemlani  and
Geoffrey Goodwin
Sangeet S. Khemlani
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540. khemlani@princeton.eduhttp://www.princeton.edu/~khemlani
Geoffrey Goodwin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ggoodwin@psych.upenn.eduhttp://www.psych.upenn.edu/people/ggoodwin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Machery has usefully organized the vast heterogeneity in conceptual representation. However, we believe his argument is too narrow in tacitly assuming that concepts are comprised of only prototypes, exemplars, and theories, and also that its eliminative aspect is too strong. We examine two exceptions to Machery's representational taxonomy before considering whether doing without concepts is a good idea.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 216 - 217
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

Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (1995) The generic book. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, A. C., Fodor, J. A., Gleitman, L. R. & Gleitman, H. (2007) Why stereotypes don't even make good defaults. Cognition 103:1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, J. (2000) Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature 407:630–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, J. (2006) An algebra of human concept learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50:339–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2003) The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, G. P. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010) Conceptual illusions. Cognition 114:253–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, G. P. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (submitted) Models as the representation of Boolean concepts.Google Scholar
Khemlani, S., Leslie, S. J. & Glucksberg, S. (submitted) Generics modulate default inferences.Google Scholar
Lawler, J. (1973) Studies in English generics. University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics, vol. 1. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation in the human representation of visual information. Freeman.Google Scholar
Prasada, S. & Dillingham, E. M. (2009) Representation of principled connections: A window onto the formal aspect of common sense conception. Cognitive Science 33:401–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, S., Khemlani, S., Leslie, S. J. & Glucksberg, S. (submitted) Conceptual distinctions amongst generics.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. I. & Jenkins, H. M. (1961) Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 75(13):1–42. (Whole No. 517).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigo, R. (2009) Categorical invariance and structural complexity in human concept learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:203–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar