David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):733-743 (2008)
recent defence of the massive modularity thesis. However, as this paper seeks to show, there are major flaws in its structure. If construed deductively, it is unsound: modular mental architecture is not necessarily the best architecture, and even if it were, this alone would not show that this architecture evolved. If construed inductively, it is not much more convincing, as it then appears to be too weak to support the kind of modularity Carruthers is concerned with. The upshot of this is that whatever reason we might have for believing that the mind is massively modular, it is not based on the argument from design. Introduction Carruthers’ Argument from Design Modularity and Optimality: Problems for the Deductive Argument from Design Degrees of Modularity: Problems for the Inductive Argument from Design Conclusion CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Richard Samuels (1998). Evolutionary Psychology and the Massive Modularity Hypothesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (4):575-602.
Elliott Sober (1981). The Evolution of Rationality. Synthese 46 (January):95-120.
Citations of this work BETA
Armin W. Schulz (2013). Selection, Drift, and Independent Contrasts: Defending the Methodological Foundations of the FIC. [REVIEW] Biological Theory 7 (1):38-47.
Similar books and articles
Peter Carruthers (2006). Simple Heuristics Meet Massive Modularity. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen P. Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Culture and Cognition. Oxford University Press.
Peter Carruthers (2006). The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind. In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Blackwell.
Edouard Machery (2007). Massive Modularity and Brain Evolution. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):825-838.
Fiona Cowie (2008). Us, Them and It: Modules, Genes, Environments and Evolution. Mind and Language 23 (3):284–292.
John M. Collins (2005). On the Input Problem for Massive Modularity. Minds and Machines 15 (1):1-22.
Marcin Miłkowski (2008). When Weak Modularity is Robust Enough? Análisis Filosófico 28 (1):77-89.
Claudia Lorena García (2007). Cognitive Modularity, Biological Modularity and Evolvability. Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition (KLI) 2 (1):62-73.
Graham Oppy (2002). Paley's Argument for Design. Philo 5 (2):161-173.
Peter Carruthers (2003). Moderately Massive Modularity. In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Mind and Persons. Cambridge University Press. 67-89.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #59,283 of 1,099,817 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #126,844 of 1,099,817 )
How can I increase my downloads?