{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":15,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":15,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[5,2,5,3],[6,2,6,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[11,2,11,3],[13,2,13,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNISA996492070103316"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Taylor Samuel D."]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Concepts and the appeal to cognitive science / / Samuel D. Taylor"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Berlin ; ; Boston : , : Düsseldorf University Press, , [2021]"]
[{"$nulls":4},"©2021"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"3-11-070816-7"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (XIII, 180 p.)"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"Dissertations in Language and Cognition"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"153"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Cognitive science"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"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"]
[null,null,null,"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."]