Mechanistic curiosity will not kill the Bayesian cat

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):192-193 (2011)

Abstract

Jones & Love (J&L) suggest that Bayesian approaches to the explanation of human behavior should be constrained by mechanistic theories. We argue that their proposal misconstrues the relation between process models, such as the Bayesian model, and mechanisms. While mechanistic theories can answer specific issues that arise from the study of processes, one cannot expect them to provide constraints in general

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,743

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
66 (#177,411)

6 months
1 (#386,989)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Bayes in the Brain—On Bayesian Modelling in Neuroscience.Matteo Colombo & Peggy Seriès - 2012 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):697-723.
Curiosity Was Framed.Dennis Whitcomb - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (3):664-687.
Curiosity as a Moral Virtue.Elias Baumgarten - 2001 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):169-184.
Curiosity, Wonder and Education Seen as Perspective Development.Paul Martin Opdal - 2001 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 20 (4):331-344.
Hume on Curiosity.Axel Gelfert - 2013 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (4):711-732.
Theory Change and Bayesian Statistical Inference.Jan-Willem Romeijn - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1174-1186.