| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910638096903321 |
|
|
Autore |
Lingna Nafafé, José |
|
|
Titolo |
Lourenço da Silva Mendoça and the Black Atlantic abolitionist movement in the Seventeenth Century / José Lingna Nafafé |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Cambridge ; New York, : Cambridge University Press, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
XVI, 468 p. : ill. ; 24 cm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Cambridge studies on the African diaspora |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Locazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collocazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Record Nr. |
UNISA996492070103316 |
|
|
Autore |
Taylor Samuel D. |
|
|
Titolo |
Concepts and the appeal to cognitive science / / Samuel D. Taylor |
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Berlin ; ; Boston : , : Düsseldorf University Press, , [2021] |
|
©2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (XIII, 180 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Dissertations in Language and Cognition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Frontmatter -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Standard View Theories of concept -- 3 The Appeal to Cognitive Science -- 4 Problem 1: Explanatory Ambiguity -- 5 Problem 2: Explananda Ambiguity -- 6 Concept as a Working Hypothesis -- 7 Why Appeals to Cognitive Science Fail -- 8 Appendix -- Bibliography |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
This book evaluates whether or not we can decide on the best theory of concepts by appealing to the explanatory results of cognitive science. It undertakes an in-depth analysis of different theories of concepts and of the explanations formulated in cognitive science. As a result, two reasons are provided for thinking that an appeal to cognitive science cannot help to decide on the best theory of concepts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |