Methodologies, not method, for primate theory of mind

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):126-127 (1998)
Abstract
Heyes correctly points out some problems in primate theory of mind, but lacks a critical approach to children's theory of mind, and at times implies meta-awareness when discussing theory of mind. Also, in selecting pure experimental designs, she ignores its limitations, as well as the merits, and at times the necessity, of other methodologies.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,007
External links
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
C. M. Heyes (1998). Theory of Mind in Nonhuman Primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):101-114.
Matt McCormick (2003). Questions About Functionalism in Kant's Philosophy of Mind: Lessons for Cognitive Science. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 15 (2):255-266.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

4 ( #254,850 of 1,101,181 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #290,806 of 1,101,181 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.