The Big Book of Concepts (A Bradford Book) Revised Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Concepts embody our knowledge of the kinds of things there are in the world. Tying our past experiences to our present interactions with the environment, they enable us to recognize and understand new objects and events. Concepts are also relevant to understanding domains such as social situations, personality types, and even artistic styles. Yet like other phenomenologically simple cognitive processes such as walking or understanding speech, concept formation and use are maddeningly complex.
Research since the 1970s and the decline of the "classical view" of concepts have greatly illuminated the psychology of concepts. But persistent theoretical disputes have sometimes obscured this progress. The Big Book of Concepts goes beyond those disputes to reveal the advances that have been made, focusing on the major empirical discoveries. By reviewing and evaluating research on diverse topics such as category learning, word meaning, conceptual development in infants and children, and the basic level of categorization, the book develops a much broader range of criteria than is usual for evaluating theories of concepts.
Customers who bought this item also bought
The Conceptual Mind: New Directions in the Study of Concepts (The MIT Press)Eric MargolisPaperback$19.23 shippingOnly 4 left in stock - order soon.
Editorial Reviews
Review
This is going to be the classic text in the field for a very long time.
―NatureReview
We've needed a book like this for the past decade. The Big Book of Concepts is beautifully done in so many ways and a true service to the field. Murphy's ambitious and integrated review is unusually thorough, thoughtful, and fair in its coverage of the diverse literatures on concepts. Graduate students will remember this volume the rest of their careers for what it taught them, and seasoned researchers will use it as the authoritative source to fill holes in their knowledge.
―Lawrence W. Barsalou, Department of Psychology, Emory UniversityAbout the Author
Product details
- Publisher : A Bradford Book; Revised edition (January 30, 2004)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 568 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0262632993
- ISBN-13 : 978-0262632997
- Reading age : 18 years and up
- Grade level : 12 and up
- Item Weight : 1.85 pounds
- Dimensions : 8.88 x 6.84 x 1.08 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,310,146 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #827 in Cognitive Psychology (Books)
- #3,062 in Medical Cognitive Psychology
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The Bad: The main weakness of this book is its prose. It’s bland and utilitarian, sure, but more importantly I found it was sometimes confusing. Murphy’s writing is pretty jargon-free and by that fact accessible, but he speaks too often in the abstract. I’d read a string of words and initially think Okay this sounds reasonable, but then when I’d expend more effort to really try to hook up the words to some sort of conceptual picture, I’d end up with something kind of fuzzy. I suggest that you read very carefully whenever you see appeals to circularity, the words ‘it’s not clear…,’ and whenever you see Murphy’s objections on the basis of theoretical principles (as opposed to on the basis of empirical evidence, where I think Murphy does a better job).
At a minimum, read the first three chapters and don’t skip the Notes. If you run into a conceptual wall, consult the cited primary studies. The Big Book of Concepts is an unpleasant read, but you will become much more knowledgeable.
Top reviews from other countries
Une longue liste d'études moins convaincantes les unes que les autres. Un exemple de paradigme expérimental utilisé dans ce domaine est de classifier un triangle jaune et un rectangle vert avec un mot arbitraire, tandis ce qu'un carré bleu ou un triangle orange doivent être classifiés avec un autre mot arbitraire. Autrement dit, des catégories totalement non naturelles. Quel ennui.
Une autre remarque qui me vient à l'esprit, il est rapidement mentionné que Barsalou 1987 remet en cause le résultat Rosch 1975, mais c'est pire que ça : il montre que les statistiques du papier de Rosch 1975 n'ont aucun sens. Pourtant, cette article reste LA référence, et continue à être cité comme si ses conclusions étaient gravées dans le marbre.
C'est terriblement âpre, et au final, on n'en sort pas convaincu de grand chose. Terriblement ennuyant.
Et surtout, ma plus grande frustration : pas la moindre mention d'Hofstadter et de son équipe, pour leurs travaux, résumés dans "Fluid concepts and creative analogies" : http://www.amazon.fr/Fluid-Concepts-And-Creative-Analogies/dp/0465024750, sont passionnants, décrivent une vision extrêmement convaincante (et élégante, et bien définie, avec de beaux modèles à la clé) de ce qu'est un concept.




