I have enjoyed a considerable amount of help with this paper. My special thanks to Keith Butler, Kevin Falvey, Terry Horgan, Cory Juhl, Brian McLaughlin, Juergen Schroeder and Bob Stecker who read and commented on earlier drafts and prompted useful modifications. Brian McLaughlin also discussed many of the fine points of the argument via email correspondence. Cory Juhl noted a very significant oversight in an earlier draft. Thanks also to audiences at the University of Texas-Austin, the 1993 Pacific Meeting of the APA, and the 1994 meeting of the Central States Philosophical Association, where earlier versions of this paper were presented.
Version of Record online: 4 MAY 2007
Mind & Language
Volume 12, Issue 2, pages 115–136, June 1997
How to Cite
AIZAWA, K. (1997), Explaining Systematicity. Mind & Language, 12: 115–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1997.tb00065.x
- Issue online: 4 MAY 2007
- Version of Record online: 4 MAY 2007
Abstract: Despite the considerable attention that the systematicity argument has enjoyed, it is worthwhile examining the argument within the context of similar explanatory arguments from the history of science. This kind of analysis helps show that Connectionism, qua Connectionism, really does not have an explanation of systematicity. Second, and more surprisingly, one finds that the systematicity argument sets such a high explanatory standard that not even Classicism can explain the systematicity of thought.