Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The central metaphor in cognitive science is the computer metaphor of the brain. In previous work, we reconstructed the metaphor in a novel way, guided by the assumption that it functions as an explanatory hypothesis. We developed an argumentative pattern for justifying scientific explanations in which this metaphor functions as a standpoint supported by argumentation containing abduction and analogy. In this paper, we use the argumentative pattern as a heuristic to reconstruct recent scientific criticisms against the computer metaphor. The pattern generates expectations about the nature of these criticisms, and we show those expectations to be met in most respects. We then discuss the extent to which our findings render the reconstruction offered by the argumentative pattern feasible. A central question emerging from our analysis is whether the computer metaphor can be adequately characterized as an explanatory hypothesis based on abduction. We suggest some possibilities for future lines of inquiry in this respect.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Boyd, R.
    (1993) Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for?InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, pp.481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023 [Google Scholar]
  2. Camp, E.
    (2020) Imaginative frames in scientific inquiry. Metaphors, telling facts, and just-so stories. InA. Levy & P. Godfrey-Smith (Eds.), The Scientific Imagination (pp.304–336). Oxford. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190212308.003.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190212308.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cisek, P.
    (1999) Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as Interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–12, 125–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Di Paolo, E. A., Buhrmann, T., & Barandiaran, X. E.
    (2017) Sensorimotor Life. An Enactive Proposal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786849.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786849.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Faye, J.
    (2016) The Nature of Scientific Thinking: On Interpretation, Explanation and Understanding. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillian.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Finsen, A. B., Steen, G., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2019) An Argumentative Reconstruction of the Computer Metaphor of the Brain. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(3), 317–335. 10.1075/jaic.18019.fin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18019.fin [Google Scholar]
  7. Gallagher, S.
    (2017) Enactivist Interventions. Rethinking the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Govier, T.
    (2010a) A Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Käufer, S. & Chemero, A.
    (2015) Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kiverstein, J. D., & Rietveld, E.
    (2018) Reconceiving representation-hungry cognition: an ecological-enactive proposal. Adaptive Behavior, 26(4), 147–163. 10.1177/1059712318772778
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712318772778 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Krein, K. & Ilundáin-Agurruza, J.
    (2017) High-level Enactive and Embodied Cognition in Expert Sport Performance. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 11:3, 370–384. 10.1080/17511321.2017.1334004
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2017.1334004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [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. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krenmayr, T., & Steen, G.
    (2015) How Viruses and Beasts Affect our Opinions (or not). The Role of Extendedness in Metaphorical Framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5:2, 245–263. 10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei [Google Scholar]
  18. Sangoi, M.
    (2014) Features and Functions of Scientific Metaphor. InF. Ervas, & M. Sangoi (Eds.), Isonomia – Epistemologica Volume 5, special issue on Metaphor and Argumentation (pp.25–38). Urbino: University of Urbino.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Steen, G.
    (2013) Deliberate Metaphor Affords Conscious Metaphorical Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–2, 179–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2017) 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Thompson, E.
    (2007) Mind in Life. Phenomenology, Biology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2018) Argumentative Patterns Viewed from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context (pp.7–30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans
    (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2016) Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation (2nd edition). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315401140
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315401140 [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Gelder, Tim
    (1995) What might cognition be if not computation?Journal of Philosophy92 (7):345–81. 10.2307/2941061
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2941061 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. (2004) Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wheeler, M.
    (2005) Reconstructing the cognitive world. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5824.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5824.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2016a) Analyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filoso a 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. Zarefsky, D.
    (2006) Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20(4), 399–416. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9030-6 [Google Scholar]
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