Mind and Language 23 (2):224–246 (2008)
|Abstract||Morgan’s Canon is a very widely endorsed methodological principle in animal psychology, believed to be vital for a rigorous, scientific approach to the study of animal cognition. In contrast I argue that Morgan’s Canon is unjustified, pernicious and unnecessary. I identify two main versions of the Canon and show that they both suffer from very serious problems. I then suggest an alternative methodological principle that captures all of the genuine methodological benefits that Morgan’s Canon can bring but suffers from none of its problems.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Chris Fraser, More Mohist Marginalia: A Reply to Makeham on Later Mohist Canon and Explanation B 67.
Henry E. Kyburg Jr (2001). Real Logic is Nonmonotonic. Minds and Machines 11 (4):577-595.
Henry E. Kyburg (2001). Real Logic is Nonmonotonic. Minds and Machines 11 (4).
Christopher Michaelson (2012). Reading Leaders' Minds: In Search of the Canon of 21st Century Global Capitalism. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 1 (1):47-61.
Marga Vicedo (1990). T.H. Morgan, Neither an Epistemological Empiricist nor a “Methodological” Empiricist. Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):293-311.
Karen Pechilis Prentiss (2001). On the Making of a Canon: Historicity and Experience in the Tamil Śiva-Bhakti Canon. International Journal of Hindu Studies 5 (1).
Derek Browne (2004). Do Dolphins Know Their Own Minds? Biology and Philosophy 19 (4):633-53.
Martin Montminy (2005). What Use is Morgan's Canon? Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):399-414.
Sean Allen-Hermanson (2005). Morgan's Canon Revisited. Philosophy of Science 72 (4):608-31.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #56,255 of 549,367 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,303 of 549,367 )
How can I increase my downloads?