Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):87-88 (2009)
|Abstract||Oaksford & Chater (O&C) rely on a data fitting approach to show that a Bayesian model captures the core reasoning data better than its logicist rivals. The problem is that O&C's modeling has focused exclusively on response output data. I argue that this exclusive focus is biasing their conclusions. Recent studies that focused on the processes that resulted in the response selection are more positive for the role of logic|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Arthur B. Markman (2001). Choice Output and Choice Processing: An Analogy to Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):423-424.
Bob Hale (1999). On Some Arguments for the Necessity of Necessity. Mind 108 (429):23-52.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2007). Innate Cognitive Capacities. Mind and Language 22 (1):92-115.
P. D. Magnus (2005). Peirce: Underdetermination, Agnosticism, and Related Mistakes. Inquiry 48 (1):26 – 37.
Rosemary Varley & Michael Siegal (2002). Language, Cognition, and the Nature of Modularity: Evidence From Aphasia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):702-703.
Jim Edwards (2007). Response to Hoeltje: Davidson Vindicated? Mind 116 (461):131-141.
David Makinson & Leendert van der Torre (2001). Constraints for Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2):155-185.
Robert Liebler (2008). Corruption and Representations of Scholarly Output. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):259-269.
Alfred J. Freddoso (1983). Accidental Necessity and Logical Determinism. Journal of Philosophy 80 (5):257-278.
Added to index2009-02-13
Total downloads4 ( #189,291 of 739,359 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?