Comments on: Summary of the 5th class http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/ why communication makes sense Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:14:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Balance http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/#comment-99 Balance Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:26:48 +0000 http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/#comment-99 Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway ... nice blog to visit. cheers, Balance. Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Balance.

]]> By: George http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/#comment-63 George Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:13:23 +0000 http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/#comment-63 Perhaps SCIENCE was not the best example - if you wanted it to work neatly. It is however a very interesting one, in the sense that it is actually disputed. You don't see many debates about what falls under FRUIT [maybe in some areas of botany, I don't know]. But take look at how people debate e.g. the theory of evolution. Is it science or a mere cluster of beliefs? [Of course it IS science, but truth and politics rarely intersect - therefore the debate.] Diana: 1. Short answer - it doesn't seem so. But it all really depends on the desiderata - what we want or need from our theory of concepts. PT was motivated by some psychological data - and it seems to fare well enough in that area. But there is a semantic and logical cost to this. See the 'refuge' of dual-factor theories as discussed by M&L. And another thing - be careful with the restriction. Most people would like a general theory of concepts. Moreover, PT has troubles with natural kind concepts - see the problem of ignorance and error @ PT. 2. Some difficulties seem to be general. Consider the question: are prototypes constitutive of, or merely associated with concepts? It might be just a trivial fact about complexity that it's easier to run the argument for BIRD. 3. I guess you're thinking of the examples quoted by M&L @ p 35? But the point is general, as you can see even in the final part of that quote [grandmothers...dentists]. So no, it goes for general terms as well. The pet example here is... PET FISH. As general as you may like; in fact, concepts expressed by singular terms are secondary in the discussion. Fodor's main criticism is related to compositionality; that's what matters. See e.g. http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/tech_rpt/herring17.pdf Let's talk about your previous comment next time. Perhaps SCIENCE was not the best example – if you wanted it to work neatly. It is however a very interesting one, in the sense that it is actually disputed. You don’t see many debates about what falls under FRUIT [maybe in some areas of botany, I don't know].
But take look at how people debate e.g. the theory of evolution. Is it science or a mere cluster of beliefs? [Of course it IS science, but truth and politics rarely intersect - therefore the debate.]

Diana:
1. Short answer – it doesn’t seem so. But it all really depends on the desiderata – what we want or need from our theory of concepts. PT was motivated by some psychological data – and it seems to fare well enough in that area. But there is a semantic and logical cost to this. See the ‘refuge’ of dual-factor theories as discussed by M&L.
And another thing – be careful with the restriction. Most people would like a general theory of concepts. Moreover, PT has troubles with natural kind concepts – see the problem of ignorance and error @ PT.

2. Some difficulties seem to be general. Consider the question: are prototypes constitutive of, or merely associated with concepts? It might be just a trivial fact about complexity that it’s easier to run the argument for BIRD.

3. I guess you’re thinking of the examples quoted by M&L @ p 35? But the point is general, as you can see even in the final part of that quote [grandmothers...dentists]. So no, it goes for general terms as well. The pet example here is… PET FISH. As general as you may like; in fact, concepts expressed by singular terms are secondary in the discussion.

Fodor’s main criticism is related to compositionality; that’s what matters. See e.g.
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/tech_rpt/herring17.pdf

Let’s talk about your previous comment next time.

]]> By: Diana Plutis http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/#comment-61 Diana Plutis Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:38:44 +0000 http://conceptscourse.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/summary-of-the-5th-class/#comment-61 Is Prototype Theory the best theory which explains all concepts that (1) fall under the category of natural kinds (2) are expressed by general terms? (1) It was quite difficult to talk about science, but I see no difficulty in talking about birds. (2) Fodor’s criticism to Prototype Theory refers only to singular terms (proper names, definite descriptions – ex: the town east form Tennessee). But can the PT be criticised when it comes to general terms? Is Prototype Theory the best theory which explains all concepts that (1) fall under the category of natural kinds (2) are expressed by general terms?

(1) It was quite difficult to talk about science, but I see no difficulty in talking about birds.
(2) Fodor’s criticism to Prototype Theory refers only to singular terms (proper names, definite descriptions – ex: the town east form Tennessee). But can the PT be criticised when it comes to general terms?

]]>