Fodor's frame problem and relevance theory (reply to chiappe & kukla)

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):530-532 (1996)
Abstract
Chiappe and Kukla argue that relevance theory fails to solve the frame problem as defined by Fodor. They are right. They are wrong, however, to take Fodor’s frame problem too seriously. Fodor’s concerns, on the other hand, even though they are wrongly framed, are worth addressing. We argue that Relevance thoery helps address them.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X00082030
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: 27,215
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Some Philosophical Problems From the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence.John McCarthy & Patrick Hayes - 1969 - In B. Meltzer & Donald Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 463--502.
Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 1987 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10 (4):697.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
On Fodor's Problem.Peter Carruthers - 2003 - Mind and Language 18 (5):502-523.
What's the Problem with the Frame Problem?Sheldon J. Chow - 2013 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (2):309-331.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

109 ( #45,197 of 2,164,580 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #44,159 of 2,164,580 )

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