Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-27-2014

Abstract

Nachev and Hacker are justified in drawing our attention to the importance of conceptual clarity and coherence as these are too often overshadowed by technical sophistication and methodological rigor, which by themselves count for little. But can a process of “conceptual analysis” actually help us to avoid pitfalls, or does it merely serve to expose those pitfalls in hindsight? What is needed is a method for making scientific arguments formulaic and laying bare the implicit assumptions. We have tools for this, but not everyone uses them.

Comments

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Cognitive Neuroscience, volume 5, issue 3-4, in 2014, available online at DOI: 10.1080/17588928.2014.950214. It may differ slightly from the final version of record.

Copyright

Taylor & Francis

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.