Incommensurability and the "omission" in Gibson's theory: A second reply to Heil

Abstract This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1982.tb00456.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,188
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Reply to Gibson, Byrne, and Brandom.John McDowell - 1996 - Philosophical Issues 7:283-300.
Taxonomic Incommensurability.Howard Sankey - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):7 – 16.
Perception and Cognition: A Final Reply to Heil.Edward S. Reed & Rebecca K. Jones - 1982 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 12 (2):223–224.
Alternative Perspectives on Omission Bias.Christopher J. Anderson - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):544-544.
What Gibson's Missing.John Heil - 1979 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 9 (3):265–269.
Gibsonian Sins of Omission.John Heil - 1981 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 11 (3):307–311.
What Gibson Isn't Missing After All: A Reply to Heil.Stephen Wilcox & Stuart Katz - 1981 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 11 (3):313–317.
What Heil is Missing in Gibson: A Reply.Harry Heft - 1980 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 10 (3):187–193.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

3 ( #687,829 of 2,153,864 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

0

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums