ABSTRACT
Zenon Pylyshyn’s (2002) recent return to the fray means that at least one thing may be said with certainty about the imagery debate: Despite Kosslyn’s (1994) claim to have resolved the controversy, there has been no progress at all. Worse still, if Pylyshyn’s null hypothesis is right, we don’t have a viable theory of imagery of any kind. The ‘tacit knowledge’ rival to pictorialism, is not itself an alternative theory but rather an indication of the direction in which an adequate theory might be sought - that is, as a theory of high-level belief or knowledge representation.
