You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
A Reply to Churchland's "Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality"
Jerry A. Fodor
Philosophy of Science
Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 188-198
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/187957
Page Count: 11
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Perceptual learning, Encapsulation, Modularity, Learning, Music learning, Cognitive psychology, Visual perception, Musical perception, Illusion, Learning theory
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Churchland's paper "Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality" offers empirical, semantical and epistemological arguments intended to show that the cognitive impenetrability of perception "does not establish a theory-neutral foundation for knowledge" and that the psychological account of perceptual encapsulation that I set forth in The Modularity of Mind "[is] almost certainly false". The present paper considers these arguments in detail and dismisses them.
Philosophy of Science © 1988 The University of Chicago Press