Skip to main content
Log in

Does Intentional Psychology Need Vindicating by Cognitive Science?

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I argue that intentional psychology does not stand in need of vindication by a lower-level implementation theory from cognitive science, in particular the representational theory of mind (RTM), as most famously Jerry Fodor has argued. The stance of the paper is novel in that I claim this holds even if one, in line with Fodor, views intentional psychology as an empirical theory, and its theoretical posits as as real as those of other sciences. I consider four metaphysical arguments for the idea that intentional psychological states, such as beliefs, must be seen as requiring in-the-head mental representations for us to be able to understand their characteristic causal powers and argue that none of them validly generate their desired conclusions. I go on to argue that RTM, or some computational version thereof, is not motivated by appeal to the nature of cognitive science research either. I conclude that intentional psychology, though an empirical theory, is autonomous from details of lower level mechanism in a way that renders RTM unwarranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, L. (1991), 'Has content been naturalised?', in B. Loewer and G. Rey, eds., Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (1985), Mindblindness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez, J. (1995), 'Non-conceptual content: from perceptual experience to subpersonal computational states', Mind and Language 10, 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boghossian, P. (1991), 'Naturalising content', in B. Loewer and G. Rey, eds., Meaning in Mind. Fodor and his Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Botterill, G. and Carruthers, P. (1999), The Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, W. (1992), 'Vision and experience: the causal theory and the disjunctive conception', The Philosophical Quarterly 42, pp. 297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1959), 'Review of Skinner's Verbal Behaviour', Language 35, pp. 26–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986), Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995), 'Language and nature', Mind 104, pp. 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P.M. (1979), Scientific Realism and Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P.M. (1981), 'Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes', Journal of Philosophy 78, pp. 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P.S. & Sejnowski, T. (1988), 'Neural representation and neural computation', in W. Lycan, ed., Mind and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1993), Associative Engines. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (1990), 'An alleged analogy between numbers and propositions', Analysis 50, pp. 224–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (1991), 'All the difference in the world', Philosophical Quarterly' 41, pp. 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (1992), 'Mental causation and mental reality', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92, pp. 186–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (1998), 'How to define your (mental) terms', Inquiry 41, pp 341–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. and Mellor, H. (1990), 'There is no question of physicalism', Mind 99, pp. 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cussins, A. (1990), 'Connectionism, competence, and explanation', in M. Boden, ed., The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1971), 'Philosophy as psychology', reprinted in his Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1977), 'Reality without reference,' reprinted in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (1991), 'Concepts, connectionism, and the language of thought', in D. Rumelhart, W. Ramsey and S. Stich, eds., Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1987), The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. (1993), The Disorder of Things. Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, F. (1992), 'Individualism: computation and perceptual content', Mind 101, pp. 443–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1975), The Language of Thought. Sussex: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1980), 'Methodological Solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology', Behavioural and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1983), The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1987), Psychosemantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1990a), 'Substitution arguments and the individuation of beliefs', in his A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1990b), 'Making mind matter more', in his A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1991), 'Replies', in B. Loewer and G. Rey, eds., Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1994), The Elm and the Expert. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1998), Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. and McLaughlin, B. (1990), 'Connectionism and the problem of systematicity: why Smolenksy's solution doesn't work', Cognition 35, pp. 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), 'Connectionism and cognitive architecture', Cognition 28, pp. 3–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Carpintero, M. (1995), 'The philosophical import of connectionism: A critical notice of Andy Clark's Associative Engines', Mind and Language 10, pp. 370–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A. (1996), 'Theories and modules; creation myths, developmental realities, and Neurath's boat', in P. Carruthers and P. Smith, eds., Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland, J. (1978), 'The nature and plausibility of cognitivism', Behavioural and Brain Sciences 2, pp. 215–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1987-8), 'Is semantics necessary?', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 88, pp. 219–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (1996), The Philosophy of Mind. Colorado: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, J. (1998), 'The language of thought and natural language understanding', Analysis 58, pp. 264–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, J. (1999), 'Physicalism, teleology and the miraculous coincidence problem', The Philosphical Quarterly 49, pp. 164–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, J. (2000), 'Is folk psychology scientific?', unpublished ms.

  • Kripke, S. (1979), 'A puzzle about belief', in A. Margalit, ed., Meaning and Use. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1970), 'How to define theoretical terms', reprinted in his Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1972), 'Psychophysical and theoretical identifications', reprinted in N. Block, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycan, W. (1993), 'A deductive argument for the representational theory of thinking', Mind and Language 8, pp 404–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. (1982), Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. (1988), 'The alleged evidence for representationalism', in S. Silvers, ed., Rerepresentations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. (1985), 'Functionalism and anomalous monism', in B. McLaughlin and E. Lepore, eds., Actions and Events. Blackwell.

  • McDowell, J. (1986), 'Singular thought and the extent of inner space', in J. McDowell and P. Pettit, eds., Subject, Thought, and Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGilvray, J. (1998), 'Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head', Mind and Language 13, pp. 225–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacocke. C. (1981), 'Demonstrative thought and psychological explanation', Synthese 49, pp 187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. and Chater, N. (1995), 'Why cognitive science is not formalised folk psychology', Minds and Machines 5, pp. 309–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. and Prince, A. (1988), 'On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition', Cognition 28, pp. 73–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. (1984), Computation and Cognition: Towards a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, W., Stich, S. and Garron, J. (1991), 'Connectionism, eliminativism, and the future of folk psychology', in D. Rumelhart, W. Ramsey and S. Stich, eds., Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sejnowski, T. & Rosenberg, C. (1987), 'Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English texts', Complex Systems 1, pp. 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, S. (1984), Identity, Cause and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, P. (1988), 'On the proper treatment of connectionism', Behaviourial and Brain Sciences 11, pp. 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1984), Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S. (1983), From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stitch S. (1996), 'Naturalism, positivism, and pluralism', in his Deconstructing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S. and Laurence, S. (1996), 'Intentionality and naturalism', in S. Stich Deconstructing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tye. M. (1992), 'Naturalism and the mental', Mind 101, pp. 421–441.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knowles, J. Does Intentional Psychology Need Vindicating by Cognitive Science?. Minds and Machines 11, 347–377 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017567903535

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017567903535

Navigation