Abstract

Luis Favela and Edouard Machery provide a summary of a survey they previously performed on how the term representation is used in the brain sciences by neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers. They then propose, based on the results, that as the term representation is likely not referring to any ontologically real thing then imprecision in its usage should not only be tolerated but in fact encouraged as it serves to promote fruitful comparative work between areas of research that all use the term. I argue that this is a sad fate for a concept as deep and important as representation.