CONCEPT

This is to say that it is literally, a symbol or group of symbols together made from the physical material of the
brain. Concepts are mental representations that allow us to draw appropriate inferences about the type of
entities we encounter in our everyday lives. Concepts do not encompass all mental representations, but are
merely a subset of them. The use of concepts is necessary to cognitive processes such as categorization,
memory, decision making, learning, and inference. In a Platonist theory of mind, concepts are construed as
abstract objects. This debate concerns the ontological status of concepts - what they are really like. There is
debate as to the relationship between concepts and natural language. However, it is necessary at least to
begin by understanding that the concept "dog" is philosophically distinct from the things in the world grouped
by this concept - or the reference class or extension. Concepts that can be equated to a single word are called
"lexical concepts". Study of concepts and conceptual structure falls into the disciplines of philosophy,
psychology, and cognitive science.
The classical theory of concepts, also referred to as the empiricist theory of concepts, is the oldest theory
about the structure of concepts (it can be traced back to Aristotle), and was prominently held until the 1970s.
The classical theory of concepts says that concepts have a definitional structure. Adequate definitions of the
kind required by this theory usually take the form of a list of features. These features must have two important
qualities to provide a comprehensive definition. Features entailed by the definition of a concept must be both
necessary and sufficient for membership in the class of things covered by a particular concept. A feature is
considered necessary if every member of the denoted class has that feature. A feature is considered sufficient
if something has all the parts required by the definition. For example, the classic example bachelor is said to be
defined by unmarried and man. An entity is a bachelor (by this definition) if and only if it is both unmarried and
a man. To check whether something is a member of the class, you compare its qualities to the features in the
definition. Another key part of this theory is that it obeys the law of the excluded middle, which means that
there are no partial members of a class, you are either in or out. The classical theory persisted for so long
unquestioned because it seemed intuitively correct and has great explanatory power. It can explain how
concepts would be acquired, how we use them to categorize and how we use the structure of a concept to
determine its referent class. In fact, for many years it was one of the major activities in philosophy - concept
analysis. Concept analysis is the act of trying to articulate the necessary and sufficient conditions for the
membership in the referent class of a concept. Prototype theory came out of problems with the classical view
of conceptual structure. Prototype theory says that concepts specify properties that members of a class tend to
possess, rather than must possess. Wittgenstein, Rosch, Mervis, Berlin, Anglin, and Posner are a few of the
key proponents and creators of this theory. Wittgenstein describes the relationship between members of a
class as family resemblances. There are not necessarily any necessary conditions for membership, a dog can
still be a dog with only three legs. This view is particularly supported by psychological experimental evidence
for prototypicality effects. Participants willingly and consistently rate objects in categories like 'vegetable' or
'furniture' as more or less typical of that class. It seems that our categories are fuzzy psychologically, and so
this structure has explanatory power. We can judge an item's membership to the referent class of a concept by
comparing it to the typical member - the most central member of the concept. If it is similar enough in the
relevant ways, it will be cognitively admitted as a member of the relevant class of entities. Rosch suggests that
every category is represented by a central exemplar which embodies all or the maximum possible number of
features of a given category. Theory-theory is a reaction to the previous two theories and develops them
further. This theory postulates that categorization by concepts is something like scientific theorizing. Concepts
are not learned in isolation, but rather are learned as a part of our experiences with the world around us. In this
sense, concepts' structure relies on their relationships to other concepts as mandated by a particular mental
theory about the state of the world. How this is supposed to work is a little less clear than in the previous two
theories, but is still a prominent and notable theory. This is supposed to explain some of the issues of
ignorance and error that come up in prototype and classical theories as concepts that are structured around
each other seem to account for errors such as whale as a fish (this misconception came from an incorrect
theory about what a whale is like, combining with our theory of what a fish is).
Hypothesis
A hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see,
the goal of research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment,
researchers might explore a number of different factors to determine which ones might contribute to the
ultimate outcome. In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment do not support the
original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be
explored in future studies. Elements of a Good Hypothesis are when trying to come up with a good hypothesis

for your own psychology research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions such as Is your
hypothesis based on your research of a topic? Can your hypothesis be tested? Does your hypothesis include
independent and dependent variables? Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing
background research on your topic. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking of potential
questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the journal articles you read. Many authors
will suggest questions that still need to be explored. Examples of a Good Hypothesis is A hypothesis often
follows a basic format of, If (this happens) then (this will happen). One way to structure your hypothesis is to
describe what will happen to the dependent variable if you make changes to the independent variable. The
basic format might be, If (these changes are made to a certain independent variable), then we will observe (a
change in a specific dependent variable). A few examples such as, Students who eat breakfast will perform
better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast; Students who experience test anxiety prior to
an English exam will get higher scores than students who do not experience test anxiety; Motorists who talk on
the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the
phone. The term hypothesis is used as a noun to refer to a proposed explanation that is made on the basis of
limited evidence as a reference point for further investigation. The proposition is made without any assumption
of its truth. A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a
reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. Hypothesis refers to
planned explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It may
also refer to a proposition alleged as a premise in an argument. Hypothesis is a statement of prediction in
study. It uses some ideas rather than theoretical terms on what to expect in a study and mainly used in
research. There is no formal hypothesis, and the aim of study is to investigate some areas thoroughly so as to
come up with specific hypothesis. An hypothesis is atentative explanation by a researcher of what the
researcher considers the outcome of an investigation will be It is an informed/educated guess. A hypothesis
(plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific
hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses
on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even
though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the
same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has
to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally
accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally
accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in
formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the
hypothesis (or antecedent); The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis",When a
possible correlation or similar relation between phenomena is investigated, such as, for example, whether a
proposed remedy is effective in treating a disease, that is, at least to some extent and for some patients, the
hypothesis that a relation exists cannot be examined the same way one might examine a proposed new law of
nature: in such an investigation a few cases in which the tested remedy shows no effect do not falsify the
hypothesis. Instead, statistical tests are used to determine how likely it is that the overall effect would be
observed if no real relation as hypothesized exists.If that likelihood is sufficiently small (e.g., less than 1%), the
existence of a relation may be assumed. Otherwise, any observed effect may as well be due to pure chance.
Theory
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation ,
and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in
order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. Someone who develops theories is called a theorist. One
modern group of meanings emphasizes the interpretative and generalizing nature of theory. For example in the
arts and philosophy, the term "theoretical" may be used to describe ideas and empirical phenomena which are
not easily measurable. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is a word still used in theological
contexts to mean viewing through contemplation , speculating about meanings that transcend measurement.
However, by contrast to theoria, theory is based on the act of viewing analytically and generalizing contextually.
It is thus based upon a process of abstraction. That is, theory involves stepping back, or abstracting, from that
which one is viewing. A theory can be "normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to
be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be
associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge. As already in
Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to
theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between
"theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the

causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy.
These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness
without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked. In
modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature,
made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such
theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either
provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable,
rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word
"theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').
Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and
scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Theories are
analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are
theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in
nature and is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (i.e. facts and
relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in
natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it
is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically,
symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or
logic. Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject
matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole
theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to
another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot be judged to
be true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible
person" is under the theory. Sometimes two theories have exactly the same explanatory power because they
make the same predictions. A pair of such theories is called indistinguishable, and the choice between them
reduces to convenience or philosophical preference. The form of theories is studied formally in mathematical
logic, especially in model theory. When theories are studied in mathematics, they are usually expressed in
some formal language and their statements are closed under application of certain procedures called rules of
inference. A special case of this, an axiomatic theory, consists of axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of
inference. A theorem is a statement that can be derived from those axioms by application of these rules of
inference. Theories used in applications are abstractions of observed phenomena and the resulting theorems
provide solutions to real-world problems.This limitation, however, in no way precludes the construction of
mathematical theories that formalize large bodies of scientific knowledge.
Knowledge
An understanding of knowledge requires some grasp of its relationship to information. In everyday language, it
has long been the practice to distinguish between information; data arranged in meaningful patterns and
knowledge which has historically been regarded as something that is believed, that is true (for pragmatic
knowledge, that works) and that is reliable. In recent times, theoretical objections to the concept of truth (e.g.
by post-modernists) or to that of reliability (e.g. by positivists) have led to some blurring of the distinction. The
interchangeable use of information and knowledge can be confusing if it is not made clear that knowledge is
being used in a new and unusual sense, and can seem unscrupulous insofar as the intent is to attach the
prestige of (true) knowledge to mere information. It also tends to obscure the fact that while it can be extremely
easy and quick to transfer information from one place to another, knowledge is sticky: it is often very difficult
and slow to transfer knowledge from person to another. (C.f. the World Bank's 1998 World Development
Report on Knowledge for Development which begins with the false assertion that knowledge travels at the
speed of light.) In assessing attempts to define knowledge it can be helpful to remember that the human mind
has often been seen as capable of two kinds of knowledge, the rational and the intuitive. In the West, intuitive
knowledge has often been devalued in favor of rational scientific knowledge, and the rise of science has even
led to claims that intuitive knowledge is not really knowledge at all. However, recognition of the difficulties
inherent in transferring knowledge from one person to another has tended to highlight the importance of tacit
knowledge e.g. notably in the writings of Polanyi (1975), and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). In an effort to
distinguish knowledge from mere information, some Western analysts (Karl Erik Sveiby) have tried defining
knowledge as wholly tacit (i.e. as capacity in action), thus consigning what others have considered as explicit
knowledge to mere information. In the East, the tradition has been to celebrate the importance of the intuitive,
in comparison with the rational. The Upanishads for instance speak about a higher and a lower knowledge,

and associate lower knowledge with the various sciences. Chinese philosophy has emphasized the
complementary nature of the intuitive and the rational and has represented them by the archetypal pair yin and
yang. Debates about the meaning of knowledge have continued for thousands of years, and seem likely to
continue for some time to come. The definition of knowledge is a matter of ongoing debate among
philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by
Plato, specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be
justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples
allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for
a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not
want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge.
Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the evidence for the belief
necessitates its truth. In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore's paradox, that one
can say "He believes it, but it isn't so," but not "He knows it, but it isn't so." He goes on to argue that these do
not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different
here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this
account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular
task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by
looking to the way "knowledge" is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a family
resemblance.