|Abstract||This article explores the view that computational models of cognition may constitute valid theories of cognition, often in the full sense of the term ‘‘theory”. In this discussion, this article examines various (existent or possible) positions on this issue and argues in favor of the view above. It also connects this issue with a number of other relevant issues, such as the general relationship between theory and data, the validation of models, and the practical benefits of computational modeling. All the discussions point to the position that computational cognitive models can be true theories of cognition. Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Gualtiero Piccinini (2006). Computational Explanation in Neuroscience. Synthese 153 (3):343-353.
Arthur M. Jacobs & Jonathan Grainger (1999). Modeling a Theory Without a Model Theory, or, Computational Modeling “After Feyerabend”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):46-47.
Chris Eliasmith (forthcoming). Computational Neuroscience. In Paul R. Thagard (ed.), Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science. Elsevier.
William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen (2010). Dynamic Mechanistic Explanation: Computational Modeling of Circadian Rhythms as an Exemplar for Cognitive Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):321-333.
Ron Sun (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #274,830 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?