David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):25-26 (2005)
The key weakness of the proposed distinction between rules and similarity is that it effectively converts what was previously seen as a consequence of rule or similarity-based processing, into a definition of rule and similarity themselves – evidence is elevated into a conceptual distinction. This conflicts with fundamental intuitions about processes and erodes the relevance of the debate across cognitive science.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Todd M. Bailey (2005). Rules Work on One Representation; Similarity Compares Two Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):16-16.
Lee R. Brooks & Samuel D. Hannah (2005). Instantiated Rules and Abstract Analogy: Not a Continuum of Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):17-17.
Jules Davidoff (2005). Two Types of Thought: Evidence From Aphasia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):20-21.
Rolf Reber (2005). Rule Versus Similarity: Different in Processing Mode, Not in Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):31-32.
Francisco Calvo Garzón (2005). Rules, Similarity, and the Information-Processing Blind Alley. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):17-18.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). Preferring Rules to Similarity: Coherence, Goals, and Commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):37-49.
Arthur B. Markman, Sergey Blok, Kyungil Kim, Levi Larkey, Lisa R. Narvaez, C. Hunt Stilwell & Eric Taylor (2005). Digging Beneath Rules and Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):29-30.
James A. Hampton (2005). Rules and Similarity – a False Dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):26-26.
Gary Marcus (2005). Opposites Detract: Why Rules and Similarity Should Not Be Viewed as Opposite Ends of a Continuum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-29.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #591,653 of 1,789,899 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,899 )
How can I increase my downloads?