Artifact category membership and the intentional-historical theory

Abstract

Bloom has illustrated a number of complex and interesting phenomena that must be accounted for by any theory of categorization. We agree with Bloom about several important points: that the intended function of an object alone does not account for its categorization; that historical relations among objects can be important in assigning category membership; and that a name bestowed upon an object by a prior source can be an important contributor to categorization of the object. We also agree that intention may enter into category judgments in some cases. Still, we believe that the intentional-historical theory falls short of providing a compelling general account of artifact category membership.