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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Keith 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.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #180,404 of 556,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?