23 found
Order:
  1.  86
    J. A. Fodor (1980). Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1):63.
  2. J. A. Fodor (1974). Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis). Synthese 28 (2):97-115.
  3.  26
    J. A. Fodor (1992). A Theory of the Child's Theory of Mind. Cognition 44 (3):283-296.
  4. J. A. Fodor (1985). Fodor's Guide to Mental Representation: The Intelligent Auntie's Vade-Mecum. Mind 94 (373):76-100.
  5.  71
    J. A. Fodor & E. Lepore (1993). Why Meaning (Probably) Isn't Conceptual Role. Philosophical Issues 3 (4):15-35.
    It's an achievement of the last couple of decades that people who work in linguistic semantics and people who work in the philosophy of language have arrived at a friendly, de facto agreement as to their respective job descriptions. The terms of this agreement are that the semanticists do the work and the philosophers do the worrying. The semanticists try to construct actual theories of meaning (or truth theories, or model theories, or whatever) for one or another kind of expression (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  6.  35
    J. A. Fodor (1980). Searle on What Only Brains Can Do. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):431.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  7.  20
    J. A. Fodor & Z. W. Pylyshyn (1981). How Direct is Visual Perception?: Some Reflections on Gibson's “Ecological Approach”. Cognition 9 (2):139-196.
    Establishment holds that thc psychological mechanism of inference is the ment psychological thcorizing. Moreover, given this conciliatory reading, transformation of mental representations, it follows that perception is in.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  8.  9
    J. A. Fodor, M. F. Garrett, E. C. T. Walker & C. H. Parkes (1980). Against Definitions. Cognition 8 (3):263-367.
  9.  57
    J. A. Fodor & R. B. Freed (1963). Some Types of Ambiguous Tokens. Analysis 24 (1):19 - 23.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  4
    J. A. Fodor (1987). 1 A Situated Grandmother? Some Remarks on Proposals by Barwise and Perry. Mind and Language 2 (1):64-81.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11.  16
    J. A. Fodor (1987). A Situated Grandmother? Some Remarks on Proposals by Barwise and Perry. Mind and Language 2 (1):64-81.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  12.  4
    J. A. Fodor (1980). Methodological Solipsism: Replies to Commentators. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1):99.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13.  26
    J. A. Fodor (1961). Projection and Paraphrase in Semantics. Analysis 21 (4):73 - 77.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  23
    R. B. Freed & J. A. Fodor (1961). Pains, Puns, Persons and Pronouns. Analysis 22 (1):6 - 9.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  2
    J. A. Fodor (1982). Projectibility and Reference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):302.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  12
    J. A. Fodor (1970). Troubles About Actions. Synthese 21 (3-4):298 - 319.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17. C. S. Chihara & J. A. Fodor (1967). Operationalism and Ordinary Language. In Harold Morick (ed.), Wittgenstein and the Problem of Other Minds. Humanities Press 35-62.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  6
    J. A. Fodor (1961). Of Words and Uses. Inquiry 4 (1-4):190 – 208.
    This paper is devoted to an investigation of one variant of the ?use theory of meaning?. It explores the possibility of characterizing the use of a linguistic unit in terms of non?linguistic facts regularly associated with utterances of the unit in question. It is argued that such regularities are associated with only a small sub?set of English sentences, and then only when these sentences occur in ?standard? contexts. An attempt is then made to characterize the relevant sense of ?standard?ness? in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. C. S. Chihara & J. A. Fodor (1991). C. The Theory Approach. In David M. Rosenthal (ed.), The Nature of Mind. Oxford University Press 137.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. R. G. De Almeida & J. A. Fodor (1996). Still Looking for Structural Complexity Effects in the Representation of Lexical Concepts. In Garrison W. Cottrell (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. J. A. Fodor (1991). A, The Computational Approach. In David M. Rosenthal (ed.), The Nature of Mind. Oxford University Press 485.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. J. A. Fodor (1989). Gonsalves, R.(1988). For Definitions: A Reply to Fodor, Garrett, Walker, and Parkes. Cognition 32:279.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. J. A. Fodor & E. Lepore (1996). Reply to Churchland. In Robert N. McCauley (ed.), The Churchlands and Their Critics. Blackwell Publishers 159--62.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography