David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):199-220 (2006)
Cognitive architectures - task-general theories of the structure and function of the complete cognitive system - are sometimes argued to be more akin to frameworks or belief systems than scientific theories. The argument stems from the apparent non-falsifiability of existing cognitive architectures. Newell was aware of this criticism and argued that architectures should be viewed not as theories subject to Popperian falsification, but rather as Lakatosian research programs based on cumulative growth. Newell's argument is undermined because he failed to demonstrate that the development of Soar, his own candidate architecture, adhered to Lakatosian principles. This paper presents detailed case studies of the development of two cognitive architectures, Soar and ACT-R, from a Lakatosian perspective. It is demonstrated that both are broadly Lakatosian, but that in both cases there have been theoretical progressions that, according to Lakatosian criteria, are pseudo-scientific. Thus, Newell's defense of Soar as a scientific rather than pseudo-scientific theory is not supported in practice. The ACT series of architectures has fewer pseudo-scientific progressions than Soar, but it too is vulnerable to accusations of pseudo-science. From this analysis, it is argued that successive versions of theories of the human cognitive architecture must explicitly address five questions to maintain scientific credibility
|Keywords||Architecture Cognitive Science Falsification Pseudoscience Science Lakatos, Imre|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Wayne D. Gray, Michael J. Schoelles & Christopher W. Myers (2003). Meeting Newell's Other Challenge: Cognitive Architectures as the Basis for Cognitive Engineering. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):609-610.
Sashank Varma (2011). Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of Cognitive Architectures. Cognitive Science 35 (7):1329-1351.
Dario D. Salvucci & Niels A. Taatgen (2011). Toward a Unified View of Cognitive Control. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):227-230.
Niels Taatgen & John R. Anderson (2010). The Past, Present, and Future of Cognitive Architectures. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):693-704.
Bill Wringe (2002). Is Folk Psychology a Lakatosian Research Program? Philosophical Psychology 15 (3):343-358.
Carlos Hernandez, Ricardo Sanz & Ignacio Lopez, Consciosusness in Cognitive Architectures. A Principled Analysis of Rcs, Soar and Act-R.
Ron Sun (2004). Desiderata for Cognitive Architectures. Philosophical Psychology 17 (3):341-373.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #91,473 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #113,165 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?