Connectionism, competence and explanation
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (June):195-222 (1990)
| Abstract | A competence model describes the abstract structure of a solution to some problem. or class of problems, facing the would-be intelligent system. Competence models can be quite derailed, specifying far more than merely the function to be computed. But for all that, they are pitched at some level of abstraction from the details of any particular algorithm or processing strategy which may be said to realize the competence. Indeed, it is the point and virtue of such models to specify some equivalence class of algorithms/processing strategies so that the common properties highlighted by the chosen class may feature in psychologically interesting accounts. A question arises concerning the type of relation a theorist might expect to hold between such a competence model and a psychologically real processing strategy. Classical work in cognitive science expects the actual processing to depend on explicit or tacit knowledge of the competence theory. Connectionist work, for reasons to be explained, represents a departure from this norm. But the precise way in which a connectionist approach may disturb the satisfying classical symmetry of competence and processing has yet to be properly specified. A standard ?Newtonian? connectionist account, due to Paul Smolensky, is discussed and contrasted with a somewhat different ?rogue? account. A standard connectionist understanding has it that a classical competence theory describes an idealized subset of a network's behaviour. But the network's behaviour is not to be explained by its embodying explicit or tacit knowledge of the information laid out in the competence theory. A rogue model, by contrast, posits either two systems, or two aspects of a single system, such that one system does indeed embody the knowledge laid out in the competence theory | |||||||||
| Keywords | Competence Connectionism Explanation Newtonians Science | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLorraine Y. Landry (1999). Multi-Disciplinary Competence Assessment: A Case Study in Consensus and Culture. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (5).
Haavi Morreim (1983). Three Concepts of Patient Competence. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 4 (3).
Marcello Frixione (2001). Tractable Competence. Minds and Machines 11 (3):379-397.
Jürgen Habermas (1970). Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence. Inquiry 13 (1-4):360-375.
Martin Davies (1989). Connectionism, Modularity and Tacit Knowledge. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (December):541-55.
Jonathan Knowles (2000). Knowledge of Grammar as a Propositional Attitude. Philosophical Psychology 13 (3):325 – 353.
Bradley Franks (1995). On Explanation in Cognitive Science: Competence, Idealization, and the Failure of the Classical Cascade. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):475-502.
Nick Boreham (2004). A Theory of Collective Competence: Challenging the Neo-Liberal Individualisation of Performance at Work. British Journal of Educational Studies 52 (1):5 - 17.
B. Franks (1999). Discussion. Idealizations, Competence and Explanation: A Response to Patterson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):735-746.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads19 ( #64,282 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
