Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T03:58:58.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Groundings of Abstraction and Their Cognitive Dimension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Sergio F. Martínez  and
Xiang Huang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the philosophy of science, abstraction has usually been analyzed in terms of the interface between our experience and the design of our concepts. The often implicit assumption here is that such interface has a definite identifiable and universalizable structure, determining the epistemic correctness of any abstraction. Our claim is that, on the contrary, the epistemic grounding of abstraction should not be reduced to the structural norms of such interface but is also related to the constraints on the cognitive processes of specific abstractions. This suggests that we should understand abstraction as embodied in different kinds of abstraction practices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 490 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

Previous versions of this article were presented at the University of Chicago and the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Thanks to the members of those audiences. In particular, we thank Axel Barcelo, Bill Wimsatt, and Rasmus Winther for their comments and discussions of the ideas presented here. We thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on this article.

References

Anderson, Michael L. 2003. “Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide.” Artificial Intelligence 149:91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2003. “Abstraction in Perceptual Symbol Systems.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358:1177–87.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W.. 2005. “Abstraction as Dynamic Interpretation in Perceptual Symbol Systems.” In Building Object Categories, ed. Gershkoff-Stowe, Lisa and Rakison, David H., 389–431. Carnegie Symposium Series. Majwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W.. 2008 “Grounded Cognition” Annual Review of Psychology 59:617–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W.. 2009. “Simulation, Situated Conceptualization, and Prediction.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 364:1281–89.Google Scholar
Bickhard, Mark H. 2001. “Why Children Don’t Have to Solve the Frame Problems: Cognitive Representations Are Not Encodings.” Developmental Review 21:224–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickhard, Mark H.. 2009. “The Interactivist Model.” Synthese 166:547–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, Anna M. 2002 “Object Concepts and Action.” In Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking, ed. Pecher, Diane and Zwaan, Rolf A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. “Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding Time through Spatial Metaphors.” Cognition 75:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, Peter. 2002. “The Roots of Scientific Reasoning: Infancy, Modularity, and the Art of Tracking.” In The Cognitive Basis of Science, ed. Carruthers, P., Stich, S., and Siegal, M., 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy D. 1989. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy D.. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemero, Anthony. 2009. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colunga, Eliana, and Smith, Linda B.. 2003. “The Emergence of Abstract Ideas: Evidence from Networks and Babies.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358:1205–14.Google Scholar
Coniglione, Francesco. 2004. “Between Abstraction and Idealization: Scientific Practic and Philosophical Awareness.” In Idealization XI: Historical Studies on Abstraction and Idealization, ed. Coniglione, Francesco, Poli, Roberto, and Rollinger, Robin, 59–110. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 82. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
de Rijcke, Sarah. 2008. “Drawing into Abstraction: Practices of Observation and Visualization in the Work of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33 (4): 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eraña, Angeles, and Sergio, Martínez. 2004. “The Heuristic Structure of Scientific Knowledge.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 4:701–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1983. Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and the Philosophy of Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul. 1995. “Abstract and Concrete.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4:157–61.Google Scholar
Jones, Martin R. 2005. “Idealization and Abstraction: A Framework.” In Idealization XII: Correcting the Model; Idealization and Abstraction in the Sciences, ed. Jones, Martin R. and Cartwright, Nancy, 172–217. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 86. Amsterdam: Rodopied.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy J. 2002. “Abstraction via Generic Modeling in Concept Formation in Science.” Mind and Society 5 (3): 129–54.Google Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy J.. 2008. Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Leszek. 1980. The Structure of Idealization: Towards a Systematic Interpretation of the Marxian Idea of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1968. Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Pincock, Christopher. 2007. “Mathematical Idealization.” Philosophy of Science 74:957–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans. 1996. In and about the World Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2006. The World Observed/The World Conceived. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar