Folk psychology won't go away: Response to Allen and Bekoff

Mind and Language 10 (4):329-332 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Responding to Allen and Bekoff's (this issue) critique of Heyes and Dickinson's (1990) analysis of the intentionality of animal action, we reiterate that our approach does not assume that a hypothesis can be definitively falsified by the results of a single experiment, and argue that the evolutionary analysis favoured by Allen and Bekoff insulates intentional accounts of animal behaviour from rejection in the usual‘holistic’process of scientific evaluation. Specifically, we present data showing that the maintenance of behaviour on an omission schedule cannot be construed as rational because on these schedules it is reward for withdrawal that restores approach. In addition, we argue that, since behaviour can be affected by the non‐intentional properties of representations such as search images and cognitive maps, whether or not these representations have intentional properties can be assessed empirically only through research on instrumental behaviour.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,343

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Function and Design Revisited.David J. Buller - 2002 - In André Ariew, Robert Cummins & Mark Perlman, Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 222-243.
The fallacy of misplaced intentionality in social representation research.Wolfgang Wagner - 1994 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 24 (3):243–165.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
56 (#401,341)

6 months
4 (#864,415)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

The intentionality of animal action.Cecilia Heyes & Anthony Dickinson - 1990 - Mind and Language 5 (1):87–103.

Add more references