Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:3 (2019) ► pp.317–335

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

An argumentative reconstruction of the computer metaphor of the brain

 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18019.fin
Abstract
The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the brain constitutes an explanatory hypothesis and set out to reconstruct it as a standpoint defended by a complex argumentation structure: abduction supported by analogy. We then provide three examples of real arguments conforming to our theoretically motivated construction. We conclude that our study obtains proof-of-concept but that more research is needed in order to further clarify the relationship between our theoretical construct and the complexities of empirical reality.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Theoretical framework
    • 3.1Argumentation and reasoning
    • 3.2Metaphor theory
      • 3.2.1Conceptual Metaphor Theory
      • 3.2.2Deliberate Metaphor Theory
    • 3.3Metaphor and argumentation theory
    • 3.4Metaphor, argumentation and genre
  • 4.Constructing the argumentative pattern
    • 4.1The basic pattern
      • Abduction
      • Adding the argument by analogy
    • 4.2The extended pattern: Abduction supported by coordinative argumentation
    • 4.3The argumentative pattern and empirical reality
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Aydede, M. 1997. Language of Thought: The Connectionist Contribution. Minds and Machines, 71, 57–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, R. 1993. Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, 481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brook, A. 2008. Phenomenology: Contribution to Cognitive Science. Abstracta, Special Issue II1, 54–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cisek, P. 1999. Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–121, 125–142.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. & Zahavi, D. 2012. The Phenomenological Mind (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2008. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Govier, T. 2010a. A Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010b. Reflections on Fact, Values, and Argument. In C. Reed & C. Tindale, (Eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argumentation (pp. 19–29). London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jansen, H. 2016. The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning. In P. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–10). Windsor: Scholarship at UWindsor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 191, 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, M. (n.d.). The Language of Thought Hypothesis. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from [URL]
Kaufer, S. & A. Chemero. 2015. Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, S. & Rihs, A. 2014. Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation, 281, 133–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piccinini, Gualtiero. 2009. Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 41, 515–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A. 2011. Information processing, computation and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 371, 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 2005. So how does the mind work? Mind and Language, 201, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1984. Minds, Brains and Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F. 2018. Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE – A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 321, 569–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. 2011a. Genre between the humanities and the social sciences. In M. Callies, W. R. Keller & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the Cognitive Sciences. Avenue, challenges, and limitations (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013a. Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–21, 179–197.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013b. The cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–142). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017a. Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse (pp. 279–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017b. Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 141, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thagard, P. 1978. The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. Journal of Philosophy, 751, 76–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. 2016. Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 301, 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. 2001. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verbrugge, R., Szymanik, J., & Isaac, A. 2014. Logic and complexity in cognitive science. In A. Baltag, & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics: Trends in Logic, Outstanding Contributions to Logic (Vol. 51, pp. 787–824). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagemans, J. H. M. 2014. The assessment of argumentation based on abduction. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) 22–26 May 2013 (pp. 1–8). Windsor: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016a. Analyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 101, 79–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016b. Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 301, 97–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016c. Criteria for deciding what is the ‘best’ scientific explanation. in D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (pp. 43–54). London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. 2001. Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 211, 141–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, C. & Wu, Y. 2014. Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 621, 68–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Finley, Kate
2025. Embodied Cognition and the Grip of Computational Metaphors. Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 12:0 DOI logo
Finsen, Andreas Bilstrup & Jean Wagemans
2025. Reconstructing Resistance: Pragmatic Argumentation Against Scientific Metaphor. Argumentation DOI logo
van Poppel, Lotte & Roosmaryn Pilgram
2024. Exploiting metaphor in disagreement. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Bilstrup Finsen, Andreas, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2021. How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
van Poppel, Lotte
2021. The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Slowing Metaphor Down [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 26], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue