The use of analogy and metaphor as descriptive and explanatory devices in neuroscientific research was examined. In particular, four analogies/metaphors common to research having to do with the brain and its function were illustrated. It is argued that the use of these and other similar literary devices in neuroscientific research sometimes leads to certain conceptual confusions and, thus, fails to aid in clarifying the nature of those phenomena they are intended to explain. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

The so-called "problem of theoretical terms" rests on the notion that the signifiers of theoretical concepts cannot be completely defined for the reason that their referents are beyond the boundaries of human perception and/or cognition. Empirical realism is a scientific tradition that was born, in part, out of a dissatisfaction with the positivist treatment of theoretical terms. Empirical realists generally conceive of theoretical terms as playing an essential role in scientific activity, giving it its explanatory force, as it is such (...) terms which denote the real, but unobservable, hypothetical entities which are thought to underlie those observable phenomena that the scientist seeks to explain. Despite certain consistencies that run throughout realist thought, there also exist a number of points of divergence among empirical realists. These are examined along with 2 different and contrasting traditions of empirical realism within psychological science. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

The Wiley Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology presents a comprehensive exploration of the wide range of methodological approaches utilized in the contemporary field of theoretical and philosophical psychology. The Wiley Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology presents a comprehensive exploration of the wide range of methodological approaches utilized in the contemporary field of theoretical and philosophical psychology. Gathers together for the first time all the approaches and methods that define scholarly practice in theoretical and philosophical psychology Chapters explore various (...) philosophical and conceptual approaches, historical approaches, narrative approaches to the nature of human conduct, mixed-method studies of psychology and psychological inquiry, and various theoretical bases of contemporary psychotherapeutic practices Features contributions from ten Past Presidents of the Society of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, along with several Past Presidents of other relevant societies. (shrink)

We provide a historical and philosophical review of the main theories of concepts that implicitly or explicitly ground the various senses of the concept “concept” in psychology and related sciences, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. We then consider these theories in terms of their ontology and epistemology . This is followed by a brief summary of more current treatments and conceptualizations of concepts within psychology that seem linked, at least to some extent, by a general “received view” of sorts, (...) according to which concepts are in some way “in the head.” We contrast this received view with a linguistic construal of concepts, according to which concepts are inextricably bound up with the terms in which they are expressed. We conclude with a consideration of the implications of the foregoing for concept research in psychology by conducting an ordinary language analysis of the concept “concept.” 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

In this article, we respond in general and specific terms to the commentaries written on our target article . In so doing, we revisit the motivation for our initial article and attempt to clarify certain aspects of our argument. Given that we were taken by some to be trying to undermine the Representational Theory of Mind , we discuss RTM in some detail. We also discuss Wittgenstein's methods and their relevance to the issues raised in our article and in the (...) commentaries. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

In this article we respond to Justin Sytsma's critique of our 2005 article "Analogy and Metaphor Running Amok: An Examination of the Use of Explanatory Devices in Neuroscience" . We address each of Sytsma's major criticisms in turn. We conclude that, not only does Sytsma fail to convincingly demonstrate how our argument fails, he falls headlong into the very conceptual confusions we examine in our original article. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).