Representation in Cognitive Science: Author’s Reply

It is a rare privilege to have such eminent and insightful reviewers. Their kind words about the book are much appreciated – perhaps more than they realise. And I’m grateful to all three for having read the book so constructively. Each has given me several things to think about. In the space available here I will focus on the objections that seem most critical. Robert Rupert argues that I rely on an overly narrow understanding of what the cognitive sciences explain (§1). Elisabeth Camp presses me on what precisely it takes to qualify as a structural representation and raises questions
about holism (§2). John Krakauer makes a fundamental objection to positing representations when they seem not to be needed to explain behaviour (§3). Rupert has also provided a useful introduction to the book, so I will jump straight in with my
replies