The new Tweety puzzle: arguments against monistic Bayesian approaches in epistemology and cognitive science
Synthese 190 (8):1407-1435 (2013)
|Abstract||In this paper we discuss the new Tweety puzzle. The original Tweety puzzle was addressed by approaches in non-monotonic logic, which aim to adequately represent the Tweety case, namely that Tweety is a penguin and, thus, an exceptional bird, which cannot fly, although in general birds can fly. The new Tweety puzzle is intended as a challenge for probabilistic theories of epistemic states. In the first part of the paper we argue against monistic Bayesians, who assume that epistemic states can at any given time be adequately described by a single subjective probability function. We show that monistic Bayesians cannot provide an adequate solution to the new Tweety puzzle, because this requires one to refer to a frequency-based probability function. We conclude that monistic Bayesianism cannot be a fully adequate theory of epistemic states. In the second part we describe an empirical study, which provides support for the thesis that monistic Bayesianism is also inadequate as a descriptive theory of cognitive states. In the final part of the paper we criticize Bayesian approaches in cognitive science, insofar as their monistic tendency cannot adequately address the new Tweety puzzle. We, further, argue against monistic Bayesianism in cognitive science by means of a case study. In this case study we show that Oaksford and Chater’s (2007, 2008) model of conditional inference—contrary to the authors’ theoretical position—has to refer also to a frequency-based probability function|
|Keywords||New Tweety puzzle Probability Frequency Probabilism Monistic Bayesianism Objective Bayesianism Bayesian rationality Oaksford and Chater Conditional inference MP-MT asymmetry Cognitive science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Giuseppe Boccignone & Roberto Cordeschi, Bayesian Models and Simulations in Cognitive Science. Workshop Models and Simulations 2, Tillburg, NL.
Geoffrey Hellman (1997). Bayes and Beyond. Philosophy of Science 64 (2):191-221.
John Horty (2007). Defaults with Priorities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (4):367 - 413.
Frederick Eberhardt & David Danks (2011). Confirmation in the Cognitive Sciences: The Problematic Case of Bayesian Models. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 21 (3):389-410.
Stephan Hartmann & Jan Sprenger (forthcoming). Bayesian Epistemology. In Duncan Pritchard & Sven Bernecker (eds.), Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge.
Joel Katzav, Henk A. Dijkstra & A. T. J. de Laat (2012). Assessing Climate Model Projections: State of the Art and Philosophical Reflections. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 43 (4):258-276.
Branden Fitelson (2010). The Wason Task(s) and the Paradox of Confirmation. Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):207-241.
Mathias Risse (2003). Bayesianism, —Quo Vadis?—Critical Notice: David Corfield and Jon Williamson (Eds.), Foundations of Bayesianism. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):225-231.
Alan Hájek & Stephan Hartmann (2010). Bayesian Epistemology. In J. Dancy et al (ed.), A Companion to Epistemology. Blackwell.
Gregory Wheeler & Jon Williamson (2011). Evidential Probability and Objective Bayesian Epistemology. In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm Forster (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Statistics. Elsevier.
Andrew Wayne (1995). Bayesianism and Diverse Evidence. Philosophy of Science 62 (1):111-121.
Christopher J. Preston (2005). Pluralism and Naturalism: Why the Proliferation of Theories is Good for the Mind. Philosophical Psychology 18 (6):715 – 735.
Added to index2012-08-07
Total downloads30 ( #46,310 of 722,698 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,779 of 722,698 )
How can I increase my downloads?