@article {Stich:September 1997:0268-1064:297,
	author = "Stich S.",
	author = "Nichols S.",
	title = "Cognitive Penetrability, Rationality and Restricted Simulation",
	journal = "Mind & Language",
	volume = "12",
	year = "September 1997",
	abstract = "<P>Heal (1996a) maintains that evidence of cognitive penetrability doesn't determine whether stimulation theory or theory theory wins. Given the wide variety of mechanisms and processes that get called `simulation', we argue that it's not useful to ask `who wins?'. The label `simulation' picks out no natural or theoretically interesting category. We propose a more fine-grained taxonomy and argue that some processes that have been labelled `simulation', e.g., `actual-situation-simulation', clearly do exist, while other processes labelled `simulation', e.g., `pretence-driven-off-line-simulation' are quite controversial. We do concede that evidence of cognitive penetrability isn't decisive evidence against pretence-driven-off-line-simulation. Nonetheless, advocates of pretence-driven-off-line-simulation need to provide some explanation of the experimental evidence of penetrability. We argue that Heal's suggestion that simulation is restricted to `rational' processes is unprincipled, and we offer an alternative proposal for restricted simulation.</P>",
	pages = "297-326(30)",
	url = "http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/mila/1997/00000012/00000003/art00050"
}