Not rational, but not brutely causal either: A reply to Fodor on concept acquisition

Abstract

Jerry Fodor has argued that concept acquisition cannot be a psychological or "rational-causal" process, but can only be a "brute-causal" process of acquisition.  This position generates the "doorknob --> DOORKNOB" problem: why are concepts typically acquired on the basis of experience with items in their extensions? I argue that Fodor's taxonomy of causal processes needs supplementation, and characterize a third type: what I call "intelligible-causal processes."  Armed with this new category I present what I regard as a better response than Fodor's to the doorknob --> DOORKNOB problem.