谁在认知类型游戏中,谁在游戏之外?穆罕默德·阿里·卡利迪的认知本体论:心脑科学的分类学实践

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Mind & Language Pub Date : 2023-10-18 DOI:10.1111/mila.12475
Jacqueline A. Sullivan
{"title":"谁在认知类型游戏中,谁在游戏之外?穆罕默德·阿里·卡利迪的认知本体论:心脑科学的分类学实践","authors":"Jacqueline A. Sullivan","doi":"10.1111/mila.12475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Muhammad Ali Khalidi contends that because cognitive science casts a wider net than neuroscience in searching for the causes of cognition, it is in the superior position to discover “real” cognitive kinds. I argue that while Khalidi identifies appropriate norms for individuating cognitive kinds, these norms ground his characterization of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, rather than the other way around. If we instead treat Khalidi's norms not as descriptively accurate characterizations of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, but as a set of best practices for kinding cognition, is cognitive science in and neuroscience definitively out of the cognitive kinding game?","PeriodicalId":51472,"journal":{"name":"Mind & Language","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who's in and who's out of the cognitive kinding game? Comments on Muhammad Ali Khalidi's <i>Cognitive ontology: Taxonomic practices in the mind‐brain sciences</i>\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline A. Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mila.12475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Muhammad Ali Khalidi contends that because cognitive science casts a wider net than neuroscience in searching for the causes of cognition, it is in the superior position to discover “real” cognitive kinds. I argue that while Khalidi identifies appropriate norms for individuating cognitive kinds, these norms ground his characterization of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, rather than the other way around. If we instead treat Khalidi's norms not as descriptively accurate characterizations of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, but as a set of best practices for kinding cognition, is cognitive science in and neuroscience definitively out of the cognitive kinding game?\",\"PeriodicalId\":51472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mind & Language\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mind & Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12475\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mind & Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12475","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

穆罕默德·阿里·卡利迪认为,因为认知科学在寻找认知的原因方面比神经科学撒下了更广泛的网,所以它在发现“真正的”认知类型方面处于优越的地位。我认为,虽然Khalidi确定了对认知类型进行个体化的适当规范,但这些规范是他在认知科学中对分类学实践进行表征的基础,而不是相反。如果我们不把哈利迪的规范作为认知科学中分类实践的准确描述,而是作为一组对认知进行分类的最佳实践,那么认知科学和神经科学是否就完全退出了认知分类的游戏?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who's in and who's out of the cognitive kinding game? Comments on Muhammad Ali Khalidi's Cognitive ontology: Taxonomic practices in the mind‐brain sciences
Muhammad Ali Khalidi contends that because cognitive science casts a wider net than neuroscience in searching for the causes of cognition, it is in the superior position to discover “real” cognitive kinds. I argue that while Khalidi identifies appropriate norms for individuating cognitive kinds, these norms ground his characterization of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, rather than the other way around. If we instead treat Khalidi's norms not as descriptively accurate characterizations of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, but as a set of best practices for kinding cognition, is cognitive science in and neuroscience definitively out of the cognitive kinding game?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mind & Language
Mind & Language Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Vigilance and mind wandering Self‐location in perceptual experience: A top‐down account Emotion descriptions and musical expressiveness In defense of language‐independent flexibility, or: What rodents and humans can do without language Craving for drugs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1