Authors
Sam Clarke
University of Pennsylvania
Jacob Beck
York University
Abstract
On a now orthodox view, humans and many other animals possess a “number sense,” or approximate number system, that represents number. Recently, this orthodox view has been subject to numerous critiques that question whether the ANS genuinely represents number. We distinguish three lines of critique – the arguments from congruency, confounds, and imprecision – and show that none succeed. We then provide positive reasons to think that the ANS genuinely represents numbers, and not just non-numerical confounds or exotic substitutes for number, such as “numerosities” or “quanticals,” as critics propose. In so doing, we raise a neglected question: numbers of what kind? Proponents of the orthodox view have been remarkably coy on this issue. But this is unsatisfactory since the predictions of the orthodox view, including the situations in which the ANS is expected to succeed or fail, turn on the kind of number being represented. In response, we propose that the ANS represents not only natural numbers, but also non-natural rational numbers. It does not represent irrational numbers, however, and thereby fails to represent the real numbers more generally. This distances our proposal from existing conjectures, refines our understanding of the ANS, and paves the way for future research.
Keywords number  number sense  approximate number system  core cognition  mental representation
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x21000571
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Vision.David Marr - 1982 - W. H. Freeman.
The Varieties of Reference.Gareth Evans - 1982 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Origins of Objectivity.Tyler Burge - 2010 - Oxford University Press.
The Meaning of 'Meaning'.Hillary Putnam - 1975 - Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131-193.

View all 77 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Does the Number Sense Represent Number?Sam Clarke & Jacob Beck - 2020 - In Blair Armstrong, Stephanie Denison, Michael Mack & Yang Xu (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
The Representations of the Approximate Number System.Stefan Buijsman - 2021 - Philosophical Psychology 34 (2):300-317.
The Mental Number Line: Exact and Approximate.Wim Fias & Tom Verguts - 2004 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (10):447-448.
What Are Numbers?Zvonimir Šikić - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):159-171.
The Arithmetical Hierarchy of Real Numbers.Xizhong Zheng & Klaus Weihrauch - 2001 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 47 (1):51-66.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-04-02

Total views
1,043 ( #5,878 of 2,506,443 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
218 ( #2,445 of 2,506,443 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes