The plurality of concepts

Weiskopf, Daniel A.

doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9340-8

Cited by 129 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Arguments against hybrid concepts have been most explicitly formulated by Machery ([2009], [2010]), Machery and Seppälä ([2011]), and Weiskopf ([2009]). Machery proposed two criteria for concept individuation that, he argued, are not actually met by hybrid theories of concepts.…”

Section: Two Challenges For Hybrid Concepts: Individuation and Explanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The question then becomes how to selectively retrieve parts of this large body of information to serve the immediate goals of the subject better. But again, this begins to collapse into the pluralist position" (Weiskopf [2009], p. 169)…”

Section: Concepts As Constituents Of Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among those that accept the multiplicity of representations disclosed by concept research there are two main reactions. One is to argue for a pluralist stance (Piccinini and Scott [2006]; Weiskopf [2009]); the other is to endorse a hybridist view of concepts (e.g., Gonnerman and Weinberg [2010]; Keil [2010]; Scarantino [2010]). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Big Concepts Paper: A Defence of Hybridism

Vicente¹,

Manrique²

2016

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The renewed interest in concepts and their role in psychological theorizing is partially motivated by Machery's claim that concepts are so heterogeneous that they have no explanatory role. Against this, pluralism argues that there is multiplicity of different concepts for any given category, while hybridism argues that a concept is constituted by a rich common representation. This paper aims to advance the understanding of the hybrid view of concepts. First, we examine the main arguments against hybrid concepts, and conclude that, even if not successful, they challenge hybridism to find a robust criterion for concept individuation, and to show an explanatory advantage for hybrid concepts. Then we propose such a criterion of individuation, which we will call functional stable coactivation. Finally, we examine the prospects of hybridism to understand what is involved in recent approaches to categorization and meaning-extraction.

show abstract

Section: Two Challenges For Hybrid Concepts: Individuation and Explanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concepts As Constituents Of Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Big Concepts Paper: A Defence of Hybridism

Vicente¹,

Manrique²

2016

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Internalized, implicit cultural norms regarding common taxonomic categories might motivate ideal dimensions that are not even easily recognized, let alone verbalized (Weiskopf, 2009). The IDM does not require verbalization of the ideal, thus offering the possibility of investigating ideal representations in a wider range of categories.…”

Section: Interpretation Of the Ideal Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A formal ideal-based account of typicality

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by Barsalou's (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-654, 1985) proposal that categories can be represented by ideals, we develop and test a computational model, the ideal dimension model (IDM). The IDM is tested in its account of the typicality gradient for 11 superordinate natural language concepts and, using Bayesian model evaluation, contrasted with a standard exemplar model and a central prototype model. The IDM is found to capture typicality better than do the exemplar model and the central tendency prototype model, in terms of both goodness of fit and generalizability. The present findings challenge the dominant view that exemplar representations are most successful and present compelling evidence that superordinate natural language categories can be represented using an abstract summary, in the form of ideal representations. Supplemental appendices for this article can be downloaded from http://mc. psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.

show abstract

“…For example, in the 'concept' debate between Machery and his critics, Machery gives numerous good reasons to eliminate 'concept', and Weiskopf (2009) gives good reasons to retain it. However, Machery himself agrees that it should not be eliminated from all discourse (although he perhaps thinks it should be eliminated from all psychology -see Machery 2009, p.246), and Weiskopf does not provide an argument that it should never be eliminated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual fragmentation and the rise of eliminativism

Taylor

Vickers

2016

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pluralist and eliminativist positions have proliferated within both science and philosophy of science in recent decades. This paper asks the question why this shift of thinking has occurred, and where it is leading us. We provide an explanation which, if correct, entails that we should expect pluralism and eliminativism to transform other debates currently unaffected, and for good reasons. We then consider the question under what circumstances eliminativism will be appropriate, arguing that it depends not only on the term in question, but also on the context of discussion and details of the debate at hand. The resultant selective eliminativism is an appealing compromise for various 'pluralists' and 'eliminativists' who are currently locking horns.

show abstract

The plurality of concepts

Cited by 129 publications

References 83 publications

The Big Concepts Paper: A Defence of Hybridism

The Big Concepts Paper: A Defence of Hybridism

A formal ideal-based account of typicality

Conceptual fragmentation and the rise of eliminativism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About