David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 1 (3):233-57 (1991)
In this paper I evaluate the soundness of the prototype paradigm, in particular its basic assumption that there are pan-human psychological essences or core meanings that refer to basic-level natural kinds, explaining why, on the whole, human communication and learning are successful. Instead I argue that there are no particular pan-human basic elements for thought, meaning and cognition, neither prototypes, nor otherwise. To illuminate my view I draw on examples from anthropology. More generally I argue that the prototype paradigm exemplifies two assumptions that dominate cognitive science: (1) If human beings use words they mean something particular and what they mean can be discovered by scientific methods. (2) There is a fixed number of domains of categorization, each made up of a fixed number of basic categories. I suggest that these two assumptions lead to Brave New World
|Keywords||Meaning concept categorization cognitive model prototype salience natural kind holism intercultural communication biological taxa basic colours basic emotions|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ray S. Jackendoff (2006). Locating Meaning in the Mind (Where It Belongs). In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Robert C. Cummins & Martin Roth (forthcoming). Meaning and Content in Cognitive Science. In Richard Schantz (ed.), Prospects for Meaning. de Gruyter.
Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest LePore (1996). The Red Herring and the Pet Fish: Why Concepts Still Can't Be Prototypes. Cognition 58 (2):253-70.
Dedre Gentner (2010). Psychology in Cognitive Science: 1978–2038. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3):328-344.
Rebecca Clift (1998). Lexical Misunderstandings and Prototype Theory. AI and Society 12 (3):109-133.
James Virtel & Gualtiero Piccinini (2010). Are Prototypes and Exemplars Used in Distinct Cognitive Processes? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):226 - 227.
Winfried D'Avis (1998). Theoretische Lücken der Cognitive Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 29 (1):37-57.
Andrew Howes (2012). Useful Theories Make Predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (1):84-86.
Gy Fuhrmann (1988). “Prototypes” and “Fuzziness” in the Logic of Concepts. Synthese 75 (3):317 - 347.
J. van Brakel (1991). Meaning, Prototypes and the Future of Cognitive Science. Minds and Machines 1 (3):233-257.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #306,128 of 1,088,426 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,426 )
How can I increase my downloads?