Synthese 75 (3):349 - 372 (1988)
|Abstract||It has been a vexing question in recent years whether concepts are fuzzy. In this paper several views on the fuzziness of concepts are pointed out to have stemmed from dubious concepts of fuzziness. The underlying notions of the roles feasibly played byprototype, set, andprobability in modeling concepts strongly suggest that the controversy originates from a vague relation between intuitive and mathematical ideas in the cognitive sciences. It is argued that the application of fuzzy sets cannot resolve this vagueness since they are one sided,viz., defined on sets. An alternative definition based on classes (in the sense of axiomatic set theory) is proposed.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Colin Allen (1998). Animal Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):66-66.
Edouard Machery (2010). Précis of Doing Without Concepts. Philosophical Studies 149 (3):602-611.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (1999). Concepts and Cognitive Science. In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings. MIT.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence, Concepts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
L. M. Talamini, M. Meeter & J. M. J. Murre (2003). Combating Fuzziness with Computational Modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (1):107-108.
Athanassios Tzouvaras (2003). An Axiomatization of 'Very' Within Systiems of Set Theory. Studia Logica 73 (3):413 - 430.
Jacky Legrand (1999). Some Guidelines for Fuzzy Sets Application in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3).
Didier DuBois (1997). Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications. Academic Press, Inc..
Gy Fuhrmann (1988). “Prototypes” and “Fuzziness” in the Logic of Concepts. Synthese 75 (3):317 - 347.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #106,175 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?