Foundations of Science

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 493–510 | Cite as

Points of View: A Conceptual Space Approach

Article

Abstract

Points of view are a central phenomenon in human cognition. Although the concept of point of view is ambiguous, there exist common elements in different notions. A point of view is a certain way to look at things around us. In conceptual points of view, things are looked at or interpreted through conceptual lenses. Conceptual points of view are important for epistemology, cognitive science, and philosophy of science. In this article, a new method to formalize conceptual points of view is introduced. It is based on the conceptual space approach, where concepts are regions of multi-dimensional quality spaces. Points of view, as defined in this article, consist of a selection of relevant dimensions, referred to here as determinables, and of a certain supposition, referred to here as a theory, about the subject content. After considering some early efforts to formalize points of view, the notion of conceptual space is defined and explored. One concept of point of view is defined and developed in the framework of conceptual space, and a new logic for points of view is also outlined. The problem of mind–body correlation is discussed as an example of the application of the notion of points of view. To conclude, the meaning and applications of the new concepts and tools developed in the article are discussed.

Keywords

Conceptual space Points of view Logic Determinables 

References

  1. Baier, K. (1958). Moral point of view. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1981). Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. (1982). Points of view and practical reasoning. Candian Journal of Philosophy, 12, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (1977). Treatise on basic philosophy. Vol. 3. Ontology I: The furniture of the world. Dordrecht-Holland/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charro, F., & Colomina, J. J. (2013). Points of view beyond models: Towards a formal approach to points of view as access to the world. Foundations of Science. Published online 05 Feb 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (1993). Sensory qualities. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Colomina, J. J. (2012). The feasibility of determinables and its relation to scientific image. In C. M. Vidal, J. L. Falguera, J. M. Sagüillo, V. M. Verdejo, & M. Pereira-Fariña (Eds.), Proceedings of the VII conference of the Spanish society for logic, methodology and philosophy of science; Actas del VII Congreso de la Sociedad de Lógica, Metodología y Filosofía de la Ciencia en España (pp. 382–388). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
  8. Conant, J. (2005). The dialect of perspectivism, 1. Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 6(2), 5–50.Google Scholar
  9. Douven, I., Decock, L., Dietz, R., & Égré, P. (2013). Vagueness: A Conceptual spaces approach. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42, 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duzí, M., Jespersen, B., & Materna, P. (2006). Points of view from a logical perspective (1). Organon, F, 13(3), 277–305.Google Scholar
  11. Duzí, M., Jespersen, B., & Materna, P. (2007). Points of view from a logical perspective (2). Organon, F, 14(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
  12. Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldberg, K., Roeder, T., Gupta, D., & Perkins, C. (2001). Eigentaste: A constant time collaborative filtering algorithm. Information Retrieval, 4(2), 1386–4564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodman, N. (1978). The ways of worldmaking. Sussex: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gärdenfors, P. (1990). Induction, conceptual spaces and AI. Philosophy of Science, 57, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: On the geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gärdenfors, P., & Zenker, F. (2015). Communication, rationality, and conceptual changes in scientific theories. In P. Gärdenfors, & F. Zenker (Eds.), Conceptual spaces at work. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Halmos, P. R. (1960). Naive set theory. London: D. Van Nostrand Company.Google Scholar
  19. Hautamäki, A. (1983a). Scientific change and intensional logic. Philosophica, 32(2), 25–42.Google Scholar
  20. Hautamäki, A. (1983b). The logic of viewpoints. Studia Logica XLII, 2(3), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hautamäki, A. (1986). Points of view and their logical analysis. Acta Philosophica Fennica (Helsinki), 41.Google Scholar
  22. Hautamäki, A. (1992). A conceptual space approach to semantic networks. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(6–9), 517–525. Published also in F. Lehmann (Ed.), Semantic networks in artificial intelligence (pp. 517–525). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holliday, W. H., & Perry, J. (Forthcoming). Roles, rigidity, and quantification in epistemic logic. In A. Baltag, & S. Smets (Eds.), Trends in logic, Outstanding contributions: Johan F. A. K. van Benthem on logical and informational dynamics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Jacquette, D. (Ed.). (2006). A companion to philosophical logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, W. (1964). Logic, Part I, (orig. 1921) and Part II (orig. 1922). Dover: New York.Google Scholar
  26. Kaipainen, M., & Hautamäki, A. (2011). Epistemic pluralism and multi-perspective knowledge organization, explorative conceptualization of topical content domains. Knowledge Organization, 38(6), 503–514.Google Scholar
  27. Kaipainen, M., & Hautamäki, A. (2015). A perspectivist approach to conceptual spaces. In P. Gärdenfors, & F.Zenker (Eds.), Conceptual spaces at work. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Kaipainen, M., Normak, P., Niglas, K., Kippar, J., & Laanpere, M. (2008). Soft ontologies, spatial representation, and multi-perspective explorability. Expert Systems, 25(5), 474–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keynes, J. M. (1921). A treatise of probability. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  30. Knuuttila, T., & Loettgers, A. (2014). Magnets, spins, and neurons: The dissemination of model templates across disciplines. Monist, 97(3), 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kohonen, T. (1982). Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics, 43, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krusal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liz, M. (2014). Models and points of view: The analysis of the notion of point of view. Model-based reasoning in science and technology. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 8, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moline, J. (1968). On points of view. American Philosophical Quarterly, 5, 191–198.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, A. (1997). Points of view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Moravcík, A. (2005). Conceptual spaces with weighted prototypes. An application to categorization. Diploma Thesis. Comenius University Bratislava.Google Scholar
  38. Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and cosmos. Why the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2003). Culture and point of view. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/19/11163.long. Accessed April 8, 2014.
  40. Poli, R. (2004). W. E. Johnson’s determinable-determinate opposition and his theory of abstraction. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 82(1), 163–196.Google Scholar
  41. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Prior, A. (1948). Determinables, determinates and determinants, I and II. Mind, 58, 1–20 and 178–194.Google Scholar
  43. Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Putnam, H. (1988). Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Quine, W. V. O. (1970). Methods of logic (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Quine, W. V. O. (1987). Quiddities: An intermittently philosophical dictionary. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Searle, J. (1959). Determinables and the notion of resemblance. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, (Supplementary vol. 33, pp. 141–158).Google Scholar
  48. Stalnaker, R. C. (1979). Anti-essentialism. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy, IV studies in metaphysics (pp. 343–355). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stegmüller, W. (1979). The structuralist view of theories. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steinbach, M., Ertöz, L., & Kumar, V. (2004). The challenges of clustering high dimensional data. In L. T. Wille (Ed.), New direction in statistical physics (pp. 273–309). Berlin & Heildeberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suppe, P. (Ed.). (1974). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tuomela, R. (1973). Theoretical concepts. Wien, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Fraassen, B. (1967). Meaning relations among predicates. Noûs, 1, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Fraassen, B. (1969). Meaning relations and modalities. Noûs, 3, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Fraassen, B. (1973). Extension, intension, and comprehension. In M. K. Munitz (Ed.), Logic and ontology (pp. 101–131). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vázquez, M., & Liz, M. (2011). Models as points of view: The case of system dynamics. Foundations of Science, 16(4), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agora CenterUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.The Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and ArtsUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations