Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:16:58.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why don't concepts constitute a natural kind?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Richard Samuels  and
Michael Ferreira
Richard Samuels
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1365. samuels.58@osu.eduferreira.23@.osu.edu
Michael Ferreira
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1365. samuels.58@osu.eduferreira.23@.osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Machery argues that concepts do not constitute a natural kind. We argue that this is a mistake. When appropriately construed, his discussion in fact bolsters the claim that concepts are a natural kind.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 222 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Boyd, R. (1989) What realism implies and what it does not. Dialectica 43:5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. (1991) Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies 61:127–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (1997) What emotions really are. Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. (2005) Concepts are not a natural kind. Philosophy of Science 72:444–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar