Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:3 (2019) ► pp. 317–335

An argumentative reconstruction of the computer metaphor of the brain

| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18019.fin
References

References

Aydede, M.
1997 Language of Thought: The Connectionist Contribution. Minds and Machines, 7, 57–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R.
1993 Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, 481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brook, A.
2008 Phenomenology: Contribution to Cognitive Science. Abstracta, Special Issue II, 54–70.Google Scholar
Cisek, P.
1999 Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–12, 125–142.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. & Zahavi, D.
2012 The Phenomenological Mind (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
2008 The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P.
2003 Theory and Reality. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 334 ]
Govier, T.
2010a A Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
2010b Reflections on Fact, Values, and Argument. In C. Reed & C. Tindale, (Eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argumentation (pp. 19–29). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Jansen, H.
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.Google Scholar
Juthe, A.
2005 Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, M.
n.d.). The Language of Thought Hypothesis. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://​www​.iep​.utm​.edu​/lot​-hypo/
Kaufer, S. & A. Chemero
2015 Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Oswald, S. & Rihs, A.
2014 Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation, 28, 133–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, Gualtiero
2009 Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 4, 515–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A.
2011 Information processing, computation and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 37, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
2005 So how does the mind work? Mind and Language, 20, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H.
1938 Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
1984 Minds, Brains and Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F.
2018 Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE – A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 32, 569–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
2011a Genre between the humanities and the social sciences. In M. Callies, W. R. Keller & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the Cognitive Sciences. Avenue, challenges, and limitations (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013a Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–2, 179–197.Google Scholar
2013b The cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–142). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
2017a Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse (pp. 279–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P.
1978 The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 76–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 335 ]
van Eemeren, F.
2016 Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F.
2001 Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Verbrugge, R., Szymanik, J., & Isaac, A.
2014 Logic and complexity in cognitive science. In A. Baltag, & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics: Trends in Logic, Outstanding Contributions to Logic (Vol. 5, pp. 787–824). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wagemans, J. H. M.
2014 The assessment of argumentation based on abduction. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) 22–26 May 2013 (pp. 1–8). Windsor: OSSA.Google Scholar
2016a Analyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10, 79–94.Google Scholar
2016b Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 30, 97–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016c Criteria for deciding what is the ‘best’ scientific explanation. in D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (pp. 43–54). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
2001 Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21, 141–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Xu, C. & Wu, Y.
2014 Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 68–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bilstrup Finsen, Andreas, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2021. How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
van Poppel, Lotte
2021. The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo

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.