1887
Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the brain constitutes an explanatory hypothesis and set out to reconstruct it as a standpoint defended by a complex argumentation structure: abduction supported by analogy. We then provide three examples of real arguments conforming to our theoretically motivated construction. We conclude that our study obtains proof-of-concept but that more research is needed in order to further clarify the relationship between our theoretical construct and the complexities of empirical reality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18019.fin
2020-01-24
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aydede, M.
    1997 Language of Thought: The Connectionist Contribution. Minds and Machines, 7, 57–101. 10.1023/A:1008203301671
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008203301671 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd, R.
    1993 Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for?InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, 481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brook, A.
    2008 Phenomenology: Contribution to Cognitive Science. Abstracta, Special IssueII, 54–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cisek, P.
    1999 Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–12, 125–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gallagher, S. & Zahavi, D.
    2012The Phenomenological Mind (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gibbs, R.
    2008The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 [Google Scholar]
  7. Godfrey-Smith, P.
    2003Theory and Reality. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226300610.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226300610.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Govier, T.
    2010aA Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010b Reflections on Fact, Values, and Argument. InC. Reed & C. Tindale, (Eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argumentation (pp.19–29). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jansen, H.
    2016 The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning. InP. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp.1–10). Windsor: Scholarship at UWindsor.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Juthe, A.
    2005 Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27. 10.1007/s10503‑005‑2314‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-2314-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Katz, M.
    (n.d.). The Language of Thought Hypothesis. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved fromhttps://www.iep.utm.edu/lot-hypo/
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kaufer, S. & A. Chemero
    2015Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Oswald, S. & Rihs, A.
    2014 Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation, 28, 133–159. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9304‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Piccinini, Gualtiero
    2009 Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 4, 515–532. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2009.00215.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00215.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A.
    2011 Information processing, computation and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 37, 1–38. 10.1007/s10867‑010‑9195‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10867-010-9195-3 [Google Scholar]
  17. Pinker, S.
    2005 So how does the mind work?Mind and Language, 20, 1–24. 10.1111/j.0268‑1064.2005.00274.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00274.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Reichenbach, H.
    1938Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Searle, J.
    1984Minds, Brains and Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F.
    2018 Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE – A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 32, 569–587. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9443‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Steen, G.
    2011a Genre between the humanities and the social sciences. InM. Callies, W. R. Keller & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the Cognitive Sciences. Avenue, challenges, and limitations (pp.21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011b The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013a Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–2, 179–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013b The cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies. InJ. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp.117–142). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017a Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse (pp.279–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.016 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2017b Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14, 1–24. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Thagard, P.
    1978 The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 76–92. 10.2307/2025686
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2025686 [Google Scholar]
  28. van Eemeren, F.
    2016 Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–30. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  29. van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F.
    2001Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Verbrugge, R., Szymanik, J., & Isaac, A.
    2014 Logic and complexity in cognitive science. InA. Baltag, & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics: Trends in Logic, Outstanding Contributions to Logic (Vol.5, pp.787–824). Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wagemans, J. H. M.
    2014 The assessment of argumentation based on abduction. InD. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) 22–26 May 2013 (pp.1–8). Windsor: OSSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016a Analyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10, 79–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016b Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 30, 97–108. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9374‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2016c Criteria for deciding what is the ‘best’ scientific explanation. inD. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (pp.43–54). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Walton, D.
    2001 Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21, 141–169. 10.22329/il.v21i2.2241
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2241 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2004Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Xu, C. & Wu, Y.
    2014 Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 68–76. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18019.fin
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): abduction , analogy , argumentation , metaphor and scientific explanation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error