Hostname: page-component-66644f4456-976bt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T08:38:57.296Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Paul M. Churchland
Paul M. Churchland*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The doctrine that the character of our perceptual knowledge is plastic, and can vary substantially with the theories embraced by the perceiver, has been criticized in a recent paper by Fodor. His arguments are based on certain experimental facts and theoretical approaches in cognitive psychology. My aim in this paper is threefold: (1) to show that Fodor's views on the impenetrability of perceptual processing do not secure a theory-neutral foundation for knowledge; (2) to show that his views on impenetrability are almost certainly false; and (3) to provide some additional arguments for, and illustrations of, the theoretical character of all observation judgments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 167 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to Patricia Churchland, Michael Stack, Stephen Stich, Philip Kitcher, Patricia Kitcher, and two anonymous referees for useful criticism and discussion of earlier drafts.

References

REFERENCES

Bruner, J. (1973), “On Perceptual Readiness”, in Anglin, J. (ed.), Beyond the Information Given. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., pp. 7–42.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956), “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”, in R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity, second Edition. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 205–221.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1975), “Two Grades of Evidential Bias”, Philosophy of Science 42: 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1986), “Semantic Content: In Defense of a Network Approach”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9: 139–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. and Churchland, P. S. (1983), “Information: Semantic and Information-Theoretic”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6: 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1981), Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1984), “Observation Reconsidered”, Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1987), Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonshor, A., and Jones, G. M. (1976), “Extreme Vestibulo-Ocular Adaptation Induced by Prolonged Optical Reversal of Vision”, Journal of Physiology 256: 381–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R. (1970), The Intelligent Eye. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (1974), Concepts and Mechanisms of Perception. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1961), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kottenhoff, H. (1957), “Situational and Personal Influences on Space Perception With Experimental Spectacles”, Acta Psychologica 13: 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Livingston, R. B. (1978), Sensory Processing, Perception, and Behavior. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959), Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), “The Meaning of ‘Meaning‘”, in Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. (1980), “Computation and Cognition: Issues in the Foundation of Cognitive Science”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rock, I. (1983), The Logic of Perception. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. J., and Miles, F. A. (1972), “Centrifugal Control of Avian Retina: Effects of Lesions of the Isthmo-Optic Nucleus on Visual Behavior”, Brain Research 48: 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, J. G., and Lindenberg, R. (1969), “Efferent Nerve Fibers in the Anterior Visual Pathways in Bilateral Congenical Cyctic Eyeballs”, American Journal of Opthalmology 68: 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, K. M. (1986), “Intentionality and Information Processing: An Alternative Model for Cognitive Science”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9: 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, J. R. (1965), “The Centrifugal Nerves in Human Optic Tract, Chiasm, Optic Nerve, and Retina”, Transactions of the American Opthalmological Society 63: 678–707.Google Scholar
Wolter, J. R., and Lund, O. E. (1968), “Reaction of Centrifugal Nerves in the Human Retina”, American Journal of Opthalmology 66: 221–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed