Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.171–201

How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?

Using an argumentative pattern for reconstructing resistance to metaphor

| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam

The central metaphor in cognitive science is the computer metaphor of the brain. In previous work, we reconstructed the metaphor in a novel way, guided by the assumption that it functions as an explanatory hypothesis. We developed an argumentative pattern for justifying scientific explanations in which this metaphor functions as a standpoint supported by argumentation containing abduction and analogy. In this paper, we use the argumentative pattern as a heuristic to reconstruct recent scientific criticisms against the computer metaphor. The pattern generates expectations about the nature of these criticisms, and we show those expectations to be met in most respects. We then discuss the extent to which our findings render the reconstruction offered by the argumentative pattern feasible. A central question emerging from our analysis is whether the computer metaphor can be adequately characterized as an explanatory hypothesis based on abduction. We suggest some possibilities for future lines of inquiry in this respect.

Keywords: abduction, analogy, argumentative pattern, cognitive science, computer metaphor, scientific hypothesis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An argumentative pattern as a heuristic
    • 2.1Argumentative patterns
    • 2.2An argumentative pattern for justifying the computer metaphor of the brain
    • 2.3An argumentative pattern as heuristic for analyzing counter-argumentation
  • 3.Analyzing criticism of the computer metaphor in Sensorimotor Life: An Enactive Proposal
    • 3.1Introduction of the case
    • 3.2Matching counter-arguments to the argumentative pattern
      • 1.1′Computation best explains how cognition turns perception into behavior
      • 1.1′.1aComputation explains how cognition turns perception into behavior
      • 1.1′.1a.1Computation explains how computers turn input into output
      • 1.1′.1a.1′Turning input into output is comparable to turning perception into behavior
      • 1.1′.1bThere are no other equally good explanations
      • 1.1′.1b.1Alternative explanations D, E and F suffer from Q, R, and S
      • 1.1′.1cA computational explanation is empirically testable
      • 1.1′.1dA computational explanation coheres with other established theories
      • 1.1′.1eA computational explanation is simple/elegant
      • 1.1′.1fA computational explanation has explanatory force
      • Argument not matching the argumentative pattern
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19018.bil
References
Boyd, R.
(1993) Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, pp. 481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camp, E.
(2020) Imaginative frames in scientific inquiry. Metaphors, telling facts, and just-so stories. In A. Levy & P. Godfrey-Smith (Eds.), The Scientific Imagination (pp. 304–336). Oxford. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cisek, P.
(1999) Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as Interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–121, 125–142.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., Buhrmann, T., & Barandiaran, X. E.
(2017) Sensorimotor Life. An Enactive Proposal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faye, J.
(2016) The Nature of Scientific Thinking: On Interpretation, Explanation and Understanding. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillian.Google Scholar
Finsen, A. B., Steen, G., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
(2019) An Argumentative Reconstruction of the Computer Metaphor of the Brain. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(3), 317–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, S.
(2017) Enactivist Interventions. Rethinking the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Govier, T.
(2010a) A Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.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
Käufer, S. & Chemero, A.
(2015) Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kiverstein, J. D., & Rietveld, E.
(2018) Reconceiving representation-hungry cognition: an ecological-enactive proposal. Adaptive Behavior, 26(4), 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krein, K. & Ilundáin-Agurruza, J.
(2017) High-level Enactive and Embodied Cognition in Expert Sport Performance. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 11:3, 370–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Piccinini, Gualtiero
(2009) Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 41, 515–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A.
(2011) Information Processing, Computation and Cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 371, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krenmayr, T., & Steen, G.
(2015) How Viruses and Beasts Affect our Opinions (or not). The Role of Extendedness in Metaphorical Framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5:2, 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sangoi, M.
(2014) Features and Functions of Scientific Metaphor. In F. Ervas, & M. Sangoi (Eds.), Isonomia – Epistemologica Volume 5, special issue on Metaphor and Argumentation (pp. 25–38). Urbino: University of Urbino.Google Scholar
Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F.
(2018) Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE – A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 321, 569–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
(2013) Deliberate Metaphor Affords Conscious Metaphorical Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–21, 179–197.Google Scholar
(2017) Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Basic Assumptions, Main Tenets, Urgent Issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 141, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P.
(1978) The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. Journal of Philosophy, 751, 76–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E.
(2007) Mind in Life. Phenomenology, Biology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H.
(2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Argumentative Patterns Viewed from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context (pp. 7–30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans
(2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2016) Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation (2nd edition). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gelder, Tim
(1995) What might cognition be if not computation? Journal of Philosophy 92 (7):345–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.
(2001) Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 211, 141–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M.
(2005) Reconstructing the cognitive world. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagemans, J. H. M.
(2016a) Analyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filoso a del Linguaggio, 101, 79–94.Google Scholar
(2016b) Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 301, 97–108. DOI logoGoogle 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
Zarefsky, D.
(2006) Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20(4), 399–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar