Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):14-15 (2005)
|Abstract||Normative accounts in terms of similarity can be deployed in order to provide semantics for systems of context-free default rules and other sophisticated conditionals. In contrast, procedural accounts of decision in terms of similarity (Rubinstein 1997) are hard to reconcile with the normative rules of rationality used in decision-making, even when suitably weakened.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marc D. Basson (1983). Bioethical Decision-Making: A Reply to Ackerman. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (2):181-186.
Alex Voorhoeve & Ken Binmore (2006). Transitivity, the Sorites Paradox, and Similarity-Based Decision-Making. Erkenntnis 64 (1):101-114.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
Evan Heit & Brett K. Hayes (2005). Illuminating Reasoning and Categorization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):27-27.
Eugene C. Hargrove (1985). The Role of Rules in Ethical Decision Making. Inquiry 28 (1-4):3 – 42.
Jane Macoubrie (2003). Logical Argument Structures in Decision-Making. Argumentation 17 (3):291-313.
Beata Konikowska (1997). A Logic for Reasoning About Relative Similarity. Studia Logica 58 (1):185-226.
Oscar Vilarroya (2005). In Search of Radical Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):35-35.
Gary Marcus (2005). Opposites Detract: Why Rules and Similarity Should Not Be Viewed as Opposite Ends of a Continuum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-29.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,051 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?