Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):72-73 (1997)
|Abstract||Evolution is not like an exam in which pre-set problems need to be solved. Failing to recognise this point, Clark & Thornton misconstrue the type of explanation called for in species learning although, clearly, species that can trade spaces have more chances to discover novel beneficial behaviours. On the other hand, the trading spaces strategy might help to explain lifetime learning successes.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joshua M. Feinberg (2009). Perception of Cheaters: The Role of Past and Present Academic Achievement. Ethics and Behavior 19 (4):310 – 322.
Mariale Hardiman, Luke Rinne, Emma Gregory & Julia Yarmolinskaya (forthcoming). Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching: Where the Brain Sciences Meet Pedagogy. Neuroethics.
Don Fawkes, Tom Adajian & Steven Hoeltzel (2001). Examining the Exam. Inquiry 20 (4):19-33.
Ken Levy (2009). The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
Elliott Sober (1998). To Give a Surprise Exam, Use Game Theory. Synthese 115 (3):355-373.
Earl W. Spurgin (2004). The Goals and Merits of a Business Ethics Competency Exam. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (3):279-288.
Elizabeth Burns & Michael Lacewing (2004). Essay Writing and Exam Preparation. In Elizabeth Burns & Stephen Law (eds.), Philosophy for As and A. Routledge.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #232,316 of 549,013 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?