The Proper Function of Artifacts: Intentions, Conventions and Causal Inferences

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 391-406

  Chaigneau, Sergio E ^a   Puebla, Guillermo ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD ADOLFO IBÁÑEZ   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE TARAPACÁ   (Chile)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886808490     PISSN: 18785158     EISSN: 18785166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13164-013-0146-3     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ahn, W., C. Kalish, S. Gelman, D. Medin, C. Luhman, and S. Atran. 2001. Why essences are essential in the psychology of concepts. Cognition 82: 56-69.
2. Aunger, R. 2010. What's special about human technology? Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 115-123.
3. Bloom, P. 1996. Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition 60: 1-29.
4. Bloom, P., and L. Markson. 1998. Intention and analogy in children's naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science 9: 200-204.
5. Casler, K., and D. Kelemen. 2005. Young children's rapid learning about artifacts. Developmental Science 8: 472-480.
6. Casler, K., T. Terziyan, and K. Greene. 2009. Toddlers view artifact function normatively. Cognitive Development 24: 240-247.
7. Chaigneau, S. E., L. W. Barsalou, and S. Sloman. 2004. Assessing the causal structure of function. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 133(4): 601-625.
8. Chaigneau, S. E., R. D. Castillo, and L. Martinez. 2008. Creators' intentions bias judgments of function independently from causal inferences. Cognition 109: 123-132.
9. Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72: 741-765.
10. Defeyter, M. A., and T. P. German. 2003. Acquiring an understanding of design: Evidence form children's insight problem solving. Cognition 89: 133-155.
11. Defeyter, M. A., T. P. German, and S. E. Avons. 2007. Developmental changes in information central to artefact representation: Evidence from functional fluency tasks. Developmental Science 10: 538-546.
12. Defeyter, M. A., J. Hearing, and T. P. German. 2009. A developmental dissociation between category and function judgments about novel artifacts. Cognition 110: 260-264.
13. Dennett, D. C. 1990. The interpretation of texts, people and other artefacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50S: 177-194.
14. Gelman, S. A., and P. Bloom. 2000. Children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition 76: 91-103.
15. German, T. P., and M. A. Defeyter. 2000. Immunity to functional fixedness in young children. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7(4): 707-712.
16. German, T. P., and S. C. Johnson. 2002. Function and the origins of the design stance. Journal of Cognition and Development 3(3): 279-300.
17. German, T. P., D. Truxaw, and M. A. Defeyter. 2007. The role of information about "convention", "design", and "goal" in representing artificial kinds. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 115: 69-81.
18. Gutheil, G., P. Bloom, N. Valderrama, and R. Freedman. 2004. The role of historical intuitions in children's and adults' naming of artifacts. Cognition 91(1): 23-42.
19. Kelemen, D., and S. Carey. 2007. The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. In Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation, ed. S. Laurence and E. Margolis, 212-230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Lombrozo, T., and B. Rehder. 2012. Functions in biological kind classification. Cognitive Psychology 65: 457-485.
21. Malt, B. C., and M. R. Paquet. 2012. The real deal: What judgments of really reveal about how people think about artifacts. Memory & Cognition. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-012-0270-9.
22. Malt, B. C., and S. A. Sloman. 2007. Category essence or essentially pragmatic? Creator's intention in naming and what's really what. Cognition 105: 615-648.
23. Matan, A., and S. Carey. 2001. Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts. Cognition 78: 1-26.
24. Oakes, L. M., and K. L. Madole. 2008. Function revisited: How infants construe functional features in their representation of objects. In Advances in child development and behavior, 36, ed. R. Kail, 135-185. San Diego: Elsevier.
25. Scheele, M. 2005. The proper use of artefacts. A philosophical theory of the social constitution of artefact functions. Leiden: Marcel Scheele.
26. Scheele, M. 2006. Function and use of technical artefacts. The social conditions of function assignment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 23-36.
27. Siegel, D., and M. Callanan. 2007. Artifacts as conventional objects. Journal of Cognition and Development 8: 183-203.
28. Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.
29. Vaesen, K. 2012. The cognitive bases of human tool use. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35(4): 203-262.
30. Vaesen, K., and M. van Amerongen. 2008. Optimality vs. intent: Limitations of Dennett's artifact hermeneutics. Philosophical Psychology 21(6): 779-797.
31. Vermaas, P. E., M. Carrara, S. Borgo, and P. Garbacz 2013. The design stance and its artefacts. Synthese 1131-1152.
32. Whiten, A., V. Horner, and F. de Waal. 2005. Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature 437: 738-740.