Analysis of the chosen article, Common-Sense Functionalism and the Extended Mind , by Jack Wadham provides a thorough and extended insight into common flaws based on arguments and counter-arguments on extended mind thesis (EM). The main idea focuses on the claim made by Andy Clark, who uses a compelling argument to purport his view that a specific method of common-sense functionalism is right for EM to suffice. The mind resides in the time-space continuum invites questions on whether the anatomical organ is bound by the skull and the skin or extends beyond into active externalism in the natural environment that drives all cognitive processes (Clark & Chalmers, 1998). With this perspective on EM by Clark in mind, the chosen article is a reaction by Jack, who goes contrary to established ideologies and claims, thereby denying that a presumed brand of common-sense functionalism implies EM. Jack further dismisses Clark's supporting claims by pointing out their reliance on optional, undefended and unspoken assumptions about the way of mental kinds, which cannot validate the functionalist's sense of the argument. The article is also a critique of Mark Sprevak’s reductio on the EM argument made by Clark. Mark contends the brand common-sense functionalism aspect of EM in Clark's argument is a reductio of the EM claim, in conclusion, making the whole idea strongly absurd (Wadham, 2015). Despite Mark and Jack being in harmony with Clark's EM argument, the article also shows how these two harmonious perspectives have a falling out. Jack highlights how Clark and Mark have a common flaw that afflicts both their conflicting arguments.
The first flaw in the article is a logical fallacy exhibited by the claim of EM solely based on the assumption of branded common-sense functionalism. This logical fallacy falls under the helm of the hasty generalization fallacy that describes conclusion drawn using insufficient, inadequate and opinionated evidence. The premise might be logical and valid, but what the author concludes fails to meet satisfaction criteria, creating room for counter-arguments and invalidity claims. The article depicts the failure by Clark in linking EM to a particular form of common-sense functionalism, which renders it untrue (Howard, 2016). Jack contra argument is that the premise behind Clark's argument does not imply EM. Therefore, both authors seem to validate the premises' factual nature in question as part of cognitive processes but differ on their conclusions. The merits of the research are evident on both authors' accounts showing how the mind works as a phenotypical body within active externalities and metaphysical spaces. The flaw is apparent as we can see three authors analyzing specific concepts that are factual in nature but establish different findings. Hence, the hasty generalization fallacy is vivid in the article requiring further research to confirm which conclusion holds true.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second flaw the article highlights are the claim of lack thereof in terms of evidence of the findings of EM by Clark. A significant flaw in research is concluding without detailed and extensive evidence that supports the claim. The difference between the first flaw and the second flaw is the evidence aspect of the arguments. The second flaw highlights how insufficient evidence is absent based on improper research, leading to unspoken, unprotected, and optional assumptions to support the premise claimed. The first flaw highlight that research can indeed occur but might reveal diverse findings and subsequently diverse conclusions.
Moreover, the fallacy evident in the second flaw is Jack highlighting Clark's reliance on insufficient evidence. Still, it does not produce the required evidence to draw an alternative conclusion in contra to Clark's when it comes to EM (Cook, 2020). It is common in the scholarly world to discredit the work and research of peers. Still, it is also common to highlight the weaknesses and shortcomings without correcting them and providing proper and detailed research that was lacking in the work that is being scrutinized. Also, one professional's opinion cannot be used to dismiss another's opinion despite the claim. Unless claims are accompanied by sufficient evidence and factual information, they cannot dismiss other claims in that regard.
The third flaw evident in the article is introducing a reductio argument by a third author who uses the same premise to draw an alternative conclusion and offer insight on Clark's claim and insufficient research. No evidence or information supports the third author in his dismissal and claims that Clark's premise of the specific common-sense functionalism implies EM is actually a premise that denies it, making the initial claim redundant. Mark further adds that the premise is a precursor to more than just EM, but an expounded concept of extended mind thesis not yet researched and analyzed. At this point, the claim is just a theorized version of analysis, which Clark did in his research and used optional assumptions to back up the claim. Whence, Jack sees these two authors share a similar flaw in premise use and draws conclusions that he denies and critiques (Cook, 2020). The negative aspect of Jack's claim is that both arguments' dismissal and scrutiny lead him to commit the same mistake the authors made. The fallacy of composition used by the authors in making their claims and dismissing others reduces the objectivity of the concepts being expressed.
In conclusion, flaws are part of everyday life and allow for improvement and continuous learning. It is the responsibility of a scholar to produce sufficient and factual evidence that supports their claim. Opinions, especially in science, cannot form a basis for arguments that can have profound implications. And in the discrediting and dismissing of claims and arguments that lack sufficient and factual support, a scholar needs to provide the evidence required and not just critique on opinion. Theories are allowed in science to understand how certain things work, but the concepts derived from such theories need thorough experimentation and research. The world of extended mind thesis should not be flawed with the fallacy of composition and fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy. These common flaws render work by professionals substandard, which lowers credibility.
References
Clark, A. & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1):7-19. Doi: 10.1093/analys/58.1.7
Cook, K. (2020, Jun 9). 15 Common Logical Fallacies and How to pot Them. Retrieved from HubSpot : https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies
Howard, P. (2016, Jan 15). 12 Common Fallacies Used in Social Research. Retrieved from Medium : https://pnhoward.medium.com/12-common-fallacies-used-in-social-research-9713e4d9bf48
Wadham, J. (2015, Aug 30). Common-Sense Functionalism and the Extended Mind. The Philosophical Quarterly , Volume 66, Issue 262, pp 136-151. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqv071
