David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14 (2005)
The distinction between rules and similarity is central to our understanding of much of cognitive psychology. Two aspects of existing research have motivated the present work. First, in different cognitive psychology areas we typically see different conceptions of rules and similarity; for example, rules in language appear to be of a different kind compared to rules in categorization. Second, rules processes are typically modeled as separate from similarity ones; for example, in a learning experiment, rules and similarity influences would be described on the basis of separate models. In the present article, I assume that the rules versus similarity distinction can be understood in the same way in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and that a unified model for rules and similarity is appropriate. A rules process is considered to be a similarity one where only a single or a small subset of an object's properties are involved. Hence, rules and overall similarity operations are extremes in a single continuum of similarity operations. It is argued that this viewpoint allows adequate coverage of theory and empirical findings in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and also a reassessment of the objectives in research on rules versus similarity. Key Words: categorization; cognitive explanation; language; learning; reasoning; rules; similarity.
|Keywords||categorization cognitive explanation language learning reasoning rules similarity|
|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
Nick Reed, Peter McLeod & Zoltan Dienes (2010). Implicit Knowledge and Motor Skill: What People Who Know How to Catch Don't Know. Consciousness and Cognition 19 (1):63-76.
Na-Yung Yu, Takashi Yamauchi, Huei-Fang Yang, Yen-Lin Chen & Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna (2010). Feature Selection for Inductive Generalization. Cognitive Science 34 (8):1574-1593.
Alexander Klippel (2011). Movement Choremes: Bridging Cognitive Understanding and Formal Characterizations of Movement Patterns1. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (4):722-740.
Gary Lupyan, Daniel Mirman, Roy Hamilton & Sharon L. Thompson-Schill (2012). Categorization is Modulated by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Left Prefrontal Cortex. Cognition 124 (1):36-49.
Tom Verguts & Wim Fias (2009). Similarity and Rules United: Similarity‐ and Rule‐Based Processing in a Single Neural Network. Cognitive Science 33 (2):243-259.
Similar books and articles
Francisco Calvo Garzón (2005). Rules, Similarity, and the Information-Processing Blind Alley. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):17-18.
Donelson E. Dulany (2005). Rules and Similarity as Conscious Contents with Distinctive Roles in Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):24-24.
Ulrike Hahn (2005). Is This What the Debate on Rules Was About? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):25-26.
Gil Diesendruck (2005). “Commitment” Distinguishes Between Rules and Similarity: A Developmental Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):21-22.
Oscar Vilarroya (2005). In Search of Radical Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):35-35.
J. Gerard Wolff (2005). Integration of “Rules” and “Similarity” in a Framework of Information Compression by Multiple Alignment, Unification, and Search. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):36-37.
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.
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.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). Preferring Rules to Similarity: Coherence, Goals, and Commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):37-49.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #80,045 of 1,098,844 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #79,596 of 1,098,844 )
How can I increase my downloads?