Nominator's statement

One can measure influence in two ways: Substantive and Sociological. Fodor's ideas about modularity have certainly had a sociological influence. They are widely discussed and cited. But I don't think they have actually contributed anything of substance. We still have no idea whether any or many cognitive capacities are modular, or whether they are all interdependent to various degrees. We also have no idea whether there is really a "general" cognitive capacity over and above particular ("modular") ones, let alone any reason to believe that it could not be studied and inderstood if it did exist. The concept of "modularity" has become a buzzword and a bandwagon, for everything from cortical functional/anatomic modules of the Mountcastle/Hubel type (nothing to do with Fodorian modules), to current naive functional neo-localizationism PET-abetted), to various developmentally inspired "manifestos." Meanwhile, the "mother of all modules," Chomsky's autonomy of syntax thesis, has quietly been relaxed across the years of normal theory development at MIT, leaving Fodorian modularity a bit like the Carolingian Cheshire Cat's Smile, suspended in cognitive (sociological) space.

comments

• This book articulates a view which gives a richer structure to the mind. Although there are many problems with the notions of "modules", it is so clearly on the right track that many theorists, not including connectionists, have adopted the modularity view in some form or another.

• The issue of modularization is rich in its possible implementation, truly interdisciplinary and exquisitely written.

• The book that is the reference for modularity in the brain. Should be on the list, whether you disagree with Fodor (and I do) or not.