Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:27:35.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Kinds of Concept: Implicit and Explicit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2011

Gualtiero Piccinini
Gualtiero Piccinini*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
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. 179 - 193
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

Allen, S. W. and Brooks, L. R. 1991 “Specializing the Operation of an Explicit Rule.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. 2008 “Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition.” Annual Review of Psychology 59: 255–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. B. T. and Frankish, K., eds. 2009 In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., and Chomsky, N. 2005 “The Evolution of the Language Faculty: Clarifications and Implications.” Cognition 97: 179–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A. 2008 LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., and Fitch, W. T. 2002 “Motion Events in Language and Cognition.” Cognition 83: 49–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. 2002 “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. and Pinker, S. 2005 “The Nature of the Language Faculty and Its Implications for Evolution of Language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).” Cognition 97: 211–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilk, D. J., Lebiere, C., O’Reilly, R. C., and Anderson, J. R. 2008 “SAL: An Explicitly Pluralistic Cognitive Architecture.” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 20(3): 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. 2007 “Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes.” Annual Review of Psychology 58: 259–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, M. D 2009 “What Zombies Can’t Do: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach to the Irreducibility of Reflective Consciousness.” In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. Evans, J. S. B. T. and Frankish, K., 293–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2009 Doing without Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., and Wang, Y. 1999 “Knowing versus Naming: Similarity and the Linguistic Categorization of Artifacts.” Journal of Memory and Language 40: 230–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., and Gennari, S. P. 2003 “Universality and Language Specificity in Object Naming.” Journal of Memory and Language 49: 20–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C. and Sloman, S. A. 2004 “Conversation and Convention: Enduring Influences on Name Choice for Common Objects.” Memory and Cognition 32(8): 1346–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onishi, K. H. and Baillargeon, R. 2005 “Do 15-Month-Old Infants Understand False Beliefs?” Science 308: 255–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piccinini, G. and Scott, S. 2006 “Splitting Concepts.” Philosophy of Science 73(4): 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, R. 2009 “The Magical Number Two, Plus or Minus: Dual-Process Theory as a Theory of Cognitive Kinds.” In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. Evans, J. S. B. T. and Frankish, K., 129–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E. and Sloman, S. A. 1994 “Similarity- versus Rule-Based Categorization.” Memory and Cognition 22: 377–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. E., Patalano, A. L., and Jonides, J. 1998 “Alternative Strategies of Categorization.” Cognition 65: 167–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. D. 2002 “Exemplar Theory’s Predicted Typicality Gradient Can Be Tested and Disconfirmed.” Psychological Science 13(5): 437–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiskopf, D. A. 2009 “The Plurality of Concepts.” Synthese 169: 145–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar