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.
CITATION STYLE
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
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.