How to split concepts: A reply to Piccinini and Scott

16Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In "Concepts Are Not a Natural Kind" (2005), I argued that the notion of concept in psychology and in neuropsychology fails to pick out a natural kind. Piccinini and Scott (2006, in this issue) have criticized the argument I used to support this conclusion. They also proposed two alternative arguments for a similar conclusion. In this reply, I rebut Piccinini and Scott's main objection against the argument proposed in "Concepts Are Not a Natural Kind." Moreover, I show that the two alternative arguments developed by Piccinini and Scott are not promising for supporting the conclusion that concepts are not a natural kind. Copyright 2006 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Machery, E. (2006). How to split concepts: A reply to Piccinini and Scott. Philosophy of Science, 73(4), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1086/516812

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free