My "subversive little review", as Andy Clark describes it, is out in The Philosophical Quarterly. What makes the review subversive, I think Andy and I agree, is the attempt to undermine the import of Clark's EC by drawing a distinction between the hypothesis of extended folk cognition (that Clark apparently supports) versus the hypothesis of extended scientific cognition (which is what Rupert, Adams and Aizawa, have apparently been challenging. A&A think that maybe it is ok to let the Hypothesis of Extended Folk Cognition (HEFC) slide while the rejection of the Hypothesis of Extended Scientific Cognition (HESC) is what matters.
Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):662-664.
No comments:
Post a Comment