Do the birds and bees need cognitive reform?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):666-667 (2000)
| Abstract | Stanovich & West argue that their observed positive correlations between performance of reasoning tasks and intelligence strengthen the standing of normative rules for determining rationality. I question this argument. Violations of normative rules by cognitively humble creatures in their natural environments are more of a problem for normative rules than for the creatures. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesKeith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):645-665.
Jonathan Knowles (2002). What's Really Wrong with Laudan's Normative Naturalism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):171 – 186.
Ulrich Hoffrage (2000). Why the Analyses of Cognitive Processes Matter. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):679-680.
Kathrin Glüer & Peter Pagin (1998). Rules of Meaning and Practical Reasoning. Synthese 117 (2):207-227.
Daisie M. Radner (1994). Heterophenomenology: Learning About the Birds and the Bees. Journal of Philosophy 91 (8):389-403.
Peter Pagin (1998). Rules of Meaning and Practical Reasoning. Synthese 117 (2):207 - 227.
Bambi E. S. Robinson (1997). Birds Do It. Bees Do It. So Why Not Single Women and Lesbians? Bioethics 11 (3-4):217-227.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #180,404 of 556,803 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
