Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Teleological generics

View through CrossRef
Certain “generic” generalizations concern functions and purposes, e.g., cars are for driving. Some functional properties yield unacceptable teleological generics: for instance, cars are for parking seems false even though people park cars as often as they drive them. No theory of teleology in philosophy or psychology can explain what makes teleological generics acceptable. However, a recent theory (Prasada, 2017; Prasada & Dillingham, 2006; Prasada et al., 2013) argues that a certain type of mental representation – a “principled” connection between a kind and a property – licenses generic generalizations. The account predicts that people should accept teleological generics that describe kinds and properties linked by a principled connection. Under the analysis, car bears a principled connection to driving (a car’s primary purpose) and a non-principled connection to parking (an incidental consequence of driving). We report four experiments that tested and corroborated the theory’s predictions, and we describe a regression analysis that rules out alternative accounts. We conclude by showing how the theory we developed can serve as the foundation for a general theory of teleological thinking.
Center for Open Science
Title: Teleological generics
Description:
Certain “generic” generalizations concern functions and purposes, e.
g.
, cars are for driving.
Some functional properties yield unacceptable teleological generics: for instance, cars are for parking seems false even though people park cars as often as they drive them.
No theory of teleology in philosophy or psychology can explain what makes teleological generics acceptable.
However, a recent theory (Prasada, 2017; Prasada & Dillingham, 2006; Prasada et al.
, 2013) argues that a certain type of mental representation – a “principled” connection between a kind and a property – licenses generic generalizations.
The account predicts that people should accept teleological generics that describe kinds and properties linked by a principled connection.
Under the analysis, car bears a principled connection to driving (a car’s primary purpose) and a non-principled connection to parking (an incidental consequence of driving).
We report four experiments that tested and corroborated the theory’s predictions, and we describe a regression analysis that rules out alternative accounts.
We conclude by showing how the theory we developed can serve as the foundation for a general theory of teleological thinking.

Related Results

Generics
Generics
Generics have been a vividly debated topic since the 1970s. Several aspects make them especially interesting, from their ubiquity to their tricky truth-conditions, from their disti...
Generics designate kinds but not always essences
Generics designate kinds but not always essences
People believe that some categories are kinds with reliable causal structure and high inductive potential (e.g., Tigers). Widely endorsed theories propose that people are biased to...
Generics: Cognition and Acquisition
Generics: Cognition and Acquisition
`Ducks lay eggs' is a true sentence, and `ducks are female' is a false one. Similarly, `mosquitoes carry the West Nile virus' is obviously true, whereas `mosquitoes don't carry the...
When Do Generics Feel Justifiable? A Registered Report Bridging Key Theories
When Do Generics Feel Justifiable? A Registered Report Bridging Key Theories
Bare plural generics (‘generics’ for short) attribute a feature to members of a category without specifying how many actually possess the feature (e.g., ‘Belgians love fries’). Gen...
Speaking of Kinds: How Correcting Generic Statements can Shape Children's Concepts
Speaking of Kinds: How Correcting Generic Statements can Shape Children's Concepts
Abstract Generic language (e.g., “tigers have stripes”) leads children to assume that the referenced category (e.g., tige...
Speaking of kinds: How correcting generic statements can shape children’s concepts
Speaking of kinds: How correcting generic statements can shape children’s concepts
Generic language (e.g., “tigers have stripes”) leads children to assume that the referenced category (e.g., tigers) is inductively informative and provides a causal explanation for...
Normative generics: Against semantic polysemy
Normative generics: Against semantic polysemy
Generic sentences are sometimes characterized as normative or descriptive. Descriptive generics make generalized claims about things: dogs bark, birds fly, doughnuts have holes. No...
Teleological thinking is driven by aberrant associations
Teleological thinking is driven by aberrant associations
Teleological thought — the tendency to ascribe purpose to objects and events — is useful in some cases (encouraging explanation-seeking), but harmful in others (fueling delusions a...

Back to Top