Problems with principle P

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (3):261-77 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In Psychosemantics Fodor presents three arguments for preferring the language of thought over mere intentional realism - arguments for the conclusion that intentional causes of behavior have constituent structure. The first of these, relying on the methodological 'Principle P', is considered in detail here and is found wanting. This principle does not prefer the language of thought to those very connectionist systems which Fodor criticizes; and it rests on dubious theoretical and empirical assumptions

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Darwin's principles of divergence and natural selection: Why Fodor was almost right.Robert J. Richards - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (1):256-268.
Against postulating central systems in the mind.Jacob J. Ross - 1990 - Philosophy of Science 57 (2):297-312.
What is the connection principle?Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest Lepore - 1994 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):837-45.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
30 (#537,555)

6 months
5 (#649,144)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references