Indiana University Cognitive Science Program
Robert Rupert (2004) challenges the Extended Mind Hypothesis on the grounds that it appears to undermine the viability and productivity of cognitive science. In this paper, I respond to Rupert’s challenge by questioning his construal of cognitive scientific practice. Although the Extended Mind Hypothesis may in fact threaten the viability of a cognitive science that seeks the discovery of law‐like generalizations, cognitive scientists typically seek to describe the mechanisms that underlie such generalizations. By acknowledging the role of mechanistic explanation in contemporary cognitive scientific practice, I argue that the Extended Mind Hypothesis presents no threat to our current and future understanding of mind and cognition.