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 26 (4):531-533 (2003)
We did not, as Brakel & Shevrin imply, intend to classify either System 1 or System 2 as rational or irrational. Instrumental rationality is assessed at the organismic level, not at the subpersonal level. Thus, neither System 1 nor System 2 are themselves inherently rational or irrational. Also, that genetic fitness and instrumental rationality are not to be equated was a major theme in our target article. We disagree with Bringsjord & Yang's point that the tasks used in the heuristics and biases literature are easy. Bringsjord & Yang too readily conflate the ability to utilize a principle of rational choice with the disposition to do so. Thus, they undervalue tasks in the cognitive science literature that compellingly reveal difficulties with the latter. We agree with Newton & Roberts that models at the algorithmic level of analysis are crucial, but we disagree with their implication that attention to issues of rationality at the intentional level of analysis impedes work at the algorithmic level of analysis.
|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
Shira Elqayam & Jonathan Evans (2011). Subtracting “Ought” From “Is”: Descriptivism Versus Normativism in the Study of Human Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (05):251-252.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Kelly (2007). Evidence and Normativity: Reply to Leite. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2):465–474.
Jarrett Leplin (1986). Methodological Realism and Scientific Rationality. Philosophy of Science 53 (1):31-51.
Daniel Kahneman (2000). A Psychological Point of View: Violations of Rational Rules as a Diagnostic of Mental Processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):681-683.
Deborah Frisch (2000). The Tao of Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):672-673.
Keith E. Stanovich (2008). Higher-Order Preferences and the Master Rationality Motive. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (1):111 – 127.
Kaisa Herne & Maija Setälä (2004). A Response to the Critique of Rational Choice Theory: Lakatos' and Laudan's Conceptions Applied. Inquiry 47 (1):67 – 85.
D. E. Over & J. St B. T. Evans (2000). Rational Distinctions and Adaptations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):693-694.
Selmer Bringsjord & Yingrui Yang (2003). The Problems That Generate the Rationality Debate Are Too Easy, Given What Our Economy Now Demands. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):528-530.
Nick Chater & Mike Oaksford (2000). The Rational Analysis of Mind and Behavior. Synthese 122 (1-2):93-131.
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2000). Advancing the Rationality Debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):701-717.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads44 ( #94,197 of 1,796,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #207,429 of 1,796,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?