An argumentative reconstruction of the computer metaphor of the brain
The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the brain constitutes an explanatory hypothesis and set out to reconstruct it as a standpoint defended by a complex argumentation structure: abduction supported by analogy. We then provide three examples of real arguments conforming to our theoretically motivated construction. We conclude that our study obtains proof-of-concept but that more research is needed in order to further clarify the relationship between our theoretical construct and the complexities of empirical reality.
Keywords: abduction, analogy, argumentation, metaphor, scientific explanation
Published online: 24 January 2020
Godfrey-Smith, P.[ p. 334 ]
2016 The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning. In P. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–10). Windsor: Scholarship at UWindsor.
n.d.). The Language of Thought Hypothesis. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/lot-hypo/
Oswald, S. & Rihs, A.
Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A.
Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F.
Thagard, P.[ p. 335 ]
van Eemeren, F.
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F.
Verbrugge, R., Szymanik, J., & Isaac, A.
Wagemans, J. H. M.
Cited by 2 other publications
Bilstrup Finsen, Andreas, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans
van Poppel, Lotte
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.