Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:50:04.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observation Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Jerry Fodor
Jerry Fodor*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several arguments are considered which purport to demonstrate the impossibility of theory-neutral observation. The most important of these infers the continuity of observation with theory from the presumed continuity of perception with cognition, a doctrine widely espoused in recent cognitive psychology. An alternative psychological account of the relation between cognition and perception is proposed and its epistemological consequences for the observation/theory distinction are then explored.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 23 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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

Bruner, J. (1973), “On Perceptual Readiness”, in Anglin, J. (ed.), Beyond The Information Given. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. (1979), Scientific Realism and The Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983), The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. (1978), Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (1970), The Intelligent Eye. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1961), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar