In defense of the simulation theory

Mind and Language 7 (1-2):104-119 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Stephen Stich and Shaun Nichols advance the debate over folk psychology with their vivid depiction of the contest between the simulation theory and the theory-theory (Stich & Nichols, this issue). At least two aspects of their presentation I find highly congenial. First, they give a generally fair characterization of the simulation theory, in some respects even improving its formulation. Though I have a few minor quarrels with their formulation, it is mostly quite faithful to the version which I have found attractive (Goldman, 1989).Second, I concur with Stich and Nichols in their assertion that the theory-theory and the simulation theory are the only two games in town. Where I disagree, of course, is in Stich and Nichols’s contention that their arguments so dim the prospects of the simulation theory that it should no longer be taken seriously. On the contrary, I shall maintain, the simulation theory remains a very plausible contender, and should receive careful and respectful consideration in the continuing investigation.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Folk psychology as simulation.Robert M. Gordon - 1986 - Mind and Language 1 (2):158-71.
Simulation and cognitive penetrability.Jane Heal - 1996 - Mind and Language 11 (1):44-67.
Varieties of off-line simulation.Shaun Nichols, Stephen P. Stich, Alan M. Leslie & David B. Klein - 1996 - In Peter Carruthers & Peter K. Smith (eds.), [Book Chapter]. Cambridge University Press. pp. 39-74.
Reply to Stich and Nichols.Robert M. Gordon - 1992 - Mind and Language 7 (1-2):87-97.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
236 (#81,728)

6 months
11 (#196,102)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?