Difference between revisions of "Are Emotions Natural Kinds"
|(19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)|
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
titleAre Emotions Natural Kinds?
[[() the of emotion the with of in . .
Latest revision as of 16:49, 25 July 2020
Are Emotions Natural Kinds?: Barrett, L.F. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 28-58 (2006).
Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience) – that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion.
|Date"Date" is a type and predefined property provided by Semantic MediaWiki to represent date values.||Author||Lead-in|
|Emotion is Natural but Categories are Not||20 September 2006||Nancy Alvarado||Barrett argues against the construct of emotion by conflating the basic-emotions perspective in neural physiology with a type of category discussed in reference philosophy...|