Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T20:51:11.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Précis de Doing without Concepts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2011

Édouard Machery
Édouard Machery*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Symposium/Tribune du livre
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 141 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références bibliographiques

Anderson, J.R. et Betz, J. 2001 «A Hybrid Model of Categorization», Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, vol. 8, p. 629–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashby, F. G. et Maddox, W. T. 2004 «Human Category Learning», Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 56, p. 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1999 «Perceptual Symbol Systems», Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 22, p. 577–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burge, T. 1979 «Individualism and the Mental», Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 4, p. 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. 1981 «Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes», Journal of Philosophy, vol. 78, p. 67–90.Google Scholar
Dove, G. 2009 «Beyond Perceptual Symbols: a Call for Representational Pluralism», Cognition, vol. 110, p. 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, K. 2009 «What Concepts Do», Synthese, vol. 170, p. 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1998 Concepts. Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong, New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A 2003 «Is It a Bird? Problems With Old and New Approaches to the Theory of Concepts», Times Literary Supplement, 17 janvier 2003, vol. 3-4.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A 2008 LOT 2. The Language of Thought Revisited, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V. et Lakoff, G. 2005 «The Brain’s Concepts: the Role of the Sensory-motor System in Conceptual Knowledge», Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 21, p. 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A. 2003 «The Theory Theory as an Alternative to the Innateness Hypothesis», dans Antony, L. et Hornstein, N., dir., Chomsky and his Critics, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 238-254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T. et Danks, D. 2004 «A Theory of Causal Learning in Children: Causal Maps and Bayes Nets», Psychological Review, vol. 111, p. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, J. A. 1979 «Polymorphous Concepts in Semantic Memory», Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 18, p. 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A 2006 «Concepts As Prototypes», dans Ross, B.H., dir., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, vol. 46, New York, Academic Press, p. 79-113.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. et Gelman, S. A., dir. 1994 Mapping the Mind: Domain-specificity in Cognition and Culture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S. et Margolis, E. 1999 «Concepts and Cognitive Science», dans Margolis, E. et Laurence, S., dir., Concepts. Core Readings, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press, p. 3-82.Google Scholar
Machery, E. 2005 «Concepts Are not a Natural Kind», Philosophy of Science, vol. 72, p. 444–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2006a «Two Dogmas of Neo-Empiricism», Philosophy Compass, vol. 1, p. 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2006b «How to Split Concepts. Reply to Piccinini and Scott», Philosophy of Science, vol. 73, p. 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2007 «Concept Empiricism: A Methodological Critique», Cognition, vol. 104, p. 19–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machery, E. 2009 Doing without Concepts, New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2010 «Précis of Doing without Concepts», Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 33, p. 195–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahon, B. Z. et Caramazza, A. 2009 «Concepts and Categories: a Cognitive Neuropsychological Perspective», Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 60, p. 27–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallon, R., Machery, E., Nichols, S. et Stich, S. 2009 «Against Arguments from Reference», Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 79, p. 332–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, E. 1994 «A Reassessment of the Shift From the Classical Theory of Concepts to Prototype Theory», Cognition, vol. 51, p. 73–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margolis, E. 1995 «The Significance of the Theory Analogy in the Psychological Study of Concepts», Mind and Language, vol. 10, p. 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, E. et Laurence, S. 2006 «Concepts», dans Zalta, E.N., dir., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), en ligne: <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/concepts/>.Google Scholar
Martin, A. 2007 «The Representation of Object Concepts in the Brain», Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 58, p. 25–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D. L. et Schaffer, M. M. 1978 «Context Theory of Classification Learning», Psychological Review, vol. 85, p. 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. 2002 The Big Book of Concepts, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. et Medin, D. L. 1985 «The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence», Psychological Review, vol. 92, p. 289–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. 1992 «Exemplar-based Approach to Relating Categorization, Identification, and Recognition», dans Ashby, F.G., dir., Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition, Hillsdale (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 363-393.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N. et Smith, E. E. 1981 «On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts», Cognition, vol. 9, p. 35–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peacocke, C. 1992 A Study of Concepts, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 2008 Truly Understood, New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, G. et Scott, S. 2006 «Splitting Concepts», Philosophy of Science, vol. 73, p. 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, J. J. 2002 Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and their Perceptual Basis, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969 «Natural Kinds», dans Quine, W. V. O., Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York, Columbia University Press p. 114-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, G. 1983 «Concepts and Stereotypes», Cognition, vol. 15, p. 237–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rey, G. 2009 «Review of E. Machery, Doing without Concepts», Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, en ligne: <http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=16608>.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. 1989 «Similarity, Typicality, and Categorization», dans Vosniadou, S. et Ortony, A., dir., Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 21-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. et Mervis, C. B. 1975 «Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories», Cognitive Psychology, vol. 7, p. 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1948 Human Knowledge: Its Scope and its Limits, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Stich, S. P. 1983 From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stich, S. P 1996 Deconstructing the Mind, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T. L. et Niyogi, S. 2007 «Intuitive Theories as Grammars for Causal Inference», dans Gopnik, A. et Schulz, L., dir., Causal Learning. Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 301-322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. 2009 «The Plurality of Concepts», Synthese, vol. 169, p. 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar