Optimality vs. intent: Limitations of Dennett's artifact hermeneutics

Philosophical Psychology

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 779-797

  Vaesen, Krist ^a   Van Amerongen, Melissa ^b  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b Section Philosophy and Ethics of Technology ^*

Author keywords

Artifact function; Dennett; Interpretation

Indexed keywords

EID: 57049112712     PISSN: 09515089     EISSN: 1465394X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09515080802516204     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baldwin, D. A. (1992), Clarifying the role of shape in children's taxonomic assumption. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 392-416.
2. Barsalou, L. W., Sloman, S. A., & Chaigneau, S. E. (2006). The HIPE theory of function. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Representing functional features for language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development (pp. 131-148). New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Calvin, W. (1986). The river that flows uphill. San Fransisco: Sierra Club Books.
4. Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2005). Young children's rapid learning about artifacts. Developmental Science, 8(6), 472-480.
5. Chaigneau, S.E. (2002). Studies in the conceptual structure of object function. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emory University.
6. Defeyter, M., & German, T. (2003). Acquiring an understanding of design: Evidence from children's insight in problem solving. Cognition, 89, 133-155.
7. Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Cambridge: Bradford Books.
8. Dennett, D. C. (1989). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Dennett, D. C. (1990). The interpretation of people, texts and other artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Fall Supplement, 1, 176-194.
10. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
11. Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children's reliance on creator's intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14(2), 164-168.
12. Dipert, R. (1993). Artifacts, Art Works and Agency. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
13. Dubpernell, G. (1978). Evidence of the use of primitive batteries in antiquity. In G. Dubpernell & J. H. Westbrook (Eds.), Selected topics in the history of electrochemistry (pp. 1-22). Princeton, New Jersey: The Electrochemical Society.
14. Eggert, G. (1996). The enigmatic 'Battery of Baghdad'-scientific theories on the ancient uses of a 2,000 year old finding. The Skeptical Inquirer, 20(3), 31-34.
15. Gebelein, H. (1991). Alchemie. Munchen: Diederichs.
16. Gelman, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103.
17. German, T., & Johnson, S. (2002). Function and the origins of the design stance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3, 279-300.
18. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B205, 581-598.
19. Graham, S. A., Williams, L., & Huber, J. F. (1990). Preschoolers' and adults' reliance on object shape and object function for lexical extension. Journal for Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 128-151.
20. Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 686-708.
21. Jansen, W., Fickenfrerichs, H., Peper, R., & Flintjer, B. (1993). Die Batterie der Parther und das Vergolden der Bagdader Gotdschmiede. Chemie in Labor und Biotechnik, 44(3), 128-133.
22. Jaswal, V. K. (2006). Preschoolers favor the creator's label when reasoning about an artifact's function. Cognition, 99, 83-92.
23. Kelemen, D. (1999a). Beliefs about purpose: On the origins of teleological thought. In M. Corballis & S. E. Lea (Eds.), The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on human evolution (pp. 278-294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Kelemen, D. (1999b). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241-272.
25. Kelemen, D., & Carey, S. (2007). The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Essays on artifacts and their representation (pp. 212-230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Kemler Nelson, D. G., Heron, L., & Morris, C. (2002). How children and adults name broken objects: Inferences and reasoning about design intentions in the categorization of artifacts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3(3), 301-332.
27. Kemler Nelson, D. G., Holt, M. B., & Chan Egan, L. (2004). Two- and three-year-olds infer and reason about design intentions in order to categorize broken objects. Developmental Science, 7(5), 543-549.
28. König, W. (1938). Ein galvanisches Element aus der Partherzeit? Forschungen und Forschritte, 14(1), 8-9.
29. Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1998). Object shape, object function and object name. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 1-27.
30. Malt, B. C., & Johnson, E. C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 195-217.
31. Matan, A., & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental changes within the core of artifact functions. Cognition, 78, 1-26.
32. McLaughlin, P. (2001). What functions explain: Functional explanation and self-reproducing systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Ortiz de Montellano, B. (1991). Multicultural pseudoscience: Spreading illiteracy among minorities. Skeptical Inquirer, 16(1), 46-50.
34. Paszthory, E. (1989). Electricity generation or magic? The analysis of an unusual group of finds from Mesopotamia. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, 6, 31-38.
35. Preston, B. (1998). Cognition and tool use. Mind and Language, 13(4), 513-547.
36. Salmon, M. H. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology. London: Academic Press.
37. Siegel, D. R., & Callanan, M. A. (2007). Artifacts as conventional objects. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(2), 183-203.
38. Sloman, S. A., & Malt, B. C. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 563-582.
39. Vermaas, P., & Houkes, W. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: A challenge to etiological accounts of functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 261-289.
40. Daniken, E. (1993). Raumfahrt im Altertum. Munchen: Bertelsmann.
41. Wimsatt Jr, W. K., & Beardsley, M. C. (1954). The Intentional Fallacy. In The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.