[quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts II: First argument against BCP

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:02:23 -0000


--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> 
> Part of the trouble is that the BCP "clan" includes those like Putnam who 
> attempt a priori arguments against a possible science of psychology.  So a 
> big part of the clan have no competing research proposals.  Others do and 
> historically it is inferring and sorting that have been thought to be the 
> basis upon which a theory of concept possession is to be had, for starters.
> 
> Does this sound right insofar as it makes sense for Fodor to speak of a clan 
> of which he's focussing only on a few members?
> 


Hi, Budd.  That makes sense to me.  But lets say that was his reason, he still 
lumps everybody together at his peril.  

Put this way: he lumps it and they may not like it.  ;>}

W




Other related posts: