David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):35-35 (2005)
It is difficult to see how one can support the continuum between rules and similarity, as Pothos proposes. A similarity theory could dispense with the rules end of the continuum. The only thing that we need is one (or more than one) theory of similarity that goes beyond the stimulus-carrying information and behavioristic restrictions that have usually been attributed to similarity theories.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gary Lupyan & Gautam Vallabha (2005). Processing is Shaped by Multiple Tasks: There is More to Rules and Similarity Than Rules-to-Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-28.
Gil Diesendruck (2005). “Commitment” Distinguishes Between Rules and Similarity: A Developmental Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):21-22.
Francisco Calvo Garzón (2005). Rules, Similarity, and the Information-Processing Blind Alley. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):17-18.
Peter F. Dominey (2005). The Discontinuity Between Rules and Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):22-23.
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.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). Preferring Rules to Similarity: Coherence, Goals, and Commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):37-49.
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.
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). The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
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 downloads16 ( #239,841 of 1,934,733 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #91,970 of 1,934,733 )
How can I increase my downloads?