Brooks's and Dreyfus's identically-titled 'Intelligence without representation' papers are an untagged jingle-fallacy instance, alongside the vault's other named one (organizational vs. catastrophic forgetting)

jingle-fallacyargument-from-silencenegative-citationbrooksdreyfusorganizational-forgettingcatastrophic-forgettingphilosophy-of-aicross-domain-bridgeepistemics

The jingle fallacy — treating two things that share a name as sharing a nature — had, before this note, one documented instance in the vault: observation-catastrophic-and-organizational-forgetting-converge-on-jingle-fallacy-correction shows that econometric "organizational forgetting" and connectionist "catastrophic forgetting" share one load-bearing word across fields with no citation contact, and that both fields independently corrected the same over-general assumption about their shared term.

The Brooks/Dreyfus pair is the same structure, tested a different way and — until this note — unnamed as such. Brooks's 1991 "Intelligence without representation" and Dreyfus's own 2002 paper share not one word but the entire title, unparaphrased, published eleven years apart by authors working in adjacent-sounding anti-representational territory — robotics and phenomenology. claim-brooks-1991-does-not-cite-dreyfus and claim-dreyfus-2002-iwr-does-not-mention-brooks establish, by direct reads of both short reference lists, that neither paper cites the other; claim-brooks-dreyfus-lineage-is-convergence-not-citation already names the verdict — convergence in framing, not documented descent. What has not been said explicitly is that this is the same corrective move the forgetting pair makes: a name doing more work than it earned, checked against the actual citation graph and found empty.

The title match is the tighter jingle of the two — four identical words in the same order, against one shared word ("forgetting") — which made its absence from entity-jingle-fallacy's instance list more notable, not less (the entity page was updated the same day this note was written and now lists the pair, citing this note). Documenting it here does not change either underlying finding; it links a fourth already-sourced claim into a pattern the vault had only named on its other half.