Topoi 11 (1):59-70 (1992)
|Abstract||In this paper, I explore the implications of recent empirical research on concept representation for the philosophical enterprise of conceptual analysis. I argue that conceptual analysis, as it is commonly practiced, is committed to certain assumptions about the nature of our intuitive categorization judgments. I then try to show how these assumptions clash with contemporary accounts of concept representation in cognitive psychology. After entertaining an objection to my argument, I close by considering ways in which conceptual analysis might be altered to accord better with the empirical work|
|Keywords||Cognition Cognitive Psychology Conceptual Analysis Intuition Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Norman Y. Teng (2000). A Cognitive Analysis of the Chinese Room Argument. Philosophical Psychology 13 (3):313-24.
Justin Sytsma (2010). The Proper Province of Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):427-445.
Stephen P. Stich & Jonathan M. Weinberg (2001). Jackson's Empirical Assumptions. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (3):637-643.
David Plunkett (2011). Expressivism, Representation, and the Nature of Conceptual Analysis. Philosophical Studies 156 (1):15-31.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (2003). Concepts and Conceptual Analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (2):253-282.
Per Sandin (2006). Has Psychology Debunked Conceptual Analysis? Metaphilosophy 37 (1):26–33.
Konrad Banicki (2012). Connective Conceptual Analysis and Psychology. Theory and Psychology 22 (3):310-323.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads93 ( #9,047 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,982 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?