Display options
Cite
van Gelder T. Response to Lachman. Behav Brain Sci. 2004;27(2):295doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04240079.
van Gelder, T. (2004). Response to Lachman. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 27(2), 295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04240079
van Gelder, Tim. "Response to Lachman." The Behavioral and brain sciences vol. 27,2 (2004): 295. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04240079
van Gelder T. Response to Lachman. Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Apr;27(2):295. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04240079. PMID: 18241508.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Apr;27(2):295. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04240079.

Response to Lachman.

The Behavioral and brain sciences

Tim van Gelder

Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia [email protected].

PMID: 18241508 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X04240079

Abstract

Lachman claims that the Dynamical Hypothesis (DH) is "untenable." His own position is a version of the "The DH is epistemological, not ontological," objection to the target article, which is dealt with in section R2.3 of my original response (van Gelder 1998r). Additional objections are that the coverage of the hypothesis is "vast" and that the DH presupposes we have reached the end point of scientific theorizing. Indeed, the DH is very broad, but it does not presuppose that science has ended; that's why we call it a "hypothesis."

Publication Types