Cognitive architectures as Lakatosian research programs: Two case studies
Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):199-220 (2006)
Abstract
Cognitive architectures - task-general theories of the structure and function of the complete cognitive system - are sometimes argued to be more akin to frameworks or belief systems than scientific theories. The argument stems from the apparent non-falsifiability of existing cognitive architectures. Newell was aware of this criticism and argued that architectures should be viewed not as theories subject to Popperian falsification, but rather as Lakatosian research programs based on cumulative growth. Newell's argument is undermined because he failed to demonstrate that the development of Soar, his own candidate architecture, adhered to Lakatosian principles. This paper presents detailed case studies of the development of two cognitive architectures, Soar and ACT-R, from a Lakatosian perspective. It is demonstrated that both are broadly Lakatosian, but that in both cases there have been theoretical progressions that, according to Lakatosian criteria, are pseudo-scientific. Thus, Newell's defense of Soar as a scientific rather than pseudo-scientific theory is not supported in practice. The ACT series of architectures has fewer pseudo-scientific progressions than Soar, but it too is vulnerable to accusations of pseudo-science. From this analysis, it is argued that successive versions of theories of the human cognitive architecture must explicitly address five questions to maintain scientific credibilityDOI
10.1080/09515080500462388
My notes
Similar books and articles
Consciosusness in cognitive architectures. A principled analysis of rcs, soar and act-r.Carlos Hernandez, Ricardo Sanz & Ignacio Lopez - 2008
Is folk psychology a Lakatosian research program?Bill Wringe - 2002 - Philosophical Psychology 15 (3):343-358.
The Past, Present, and Future of Cognitive Architectures.Niels Taatgen & John R. Anderson - 2010 - Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):693-704.
Toward a Unified View of Cognitive Control.Dario D. Salvucci & Niels A. Taatgen - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):227-230.
Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of Cognitive Architectures.Sashank Varma - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (7):1329-1351.
Meeting Newell's other challenge: Cognitive architectures as the basis for cognitive engineering.Wayne D. Gray, Michael J. Schoelles & Christopher W. Myers - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):609-610.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
69 (#176,155)
6 months
5 (#155,016)
2009-01-28
Downloads
69 (#176,155)
6 months
5 (#155,016)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Representational unification in cognitive science: Is embodied cognition a unifying perspective?Marcin Miłkowski & Przemysław Nowakowski - 2019 - Synthese 199 (Suppl 1):67-88.
Multidisciplinary Flux and Multiple Research Traditions Within Cognitive Science.Richard P. Cooper - 2019 - Topics in Cognitive Science 11 (4):869-879.
The Role of Falsification in the Development of Cognitive Architectures: Insights from a Lakatosian Analysis.Richard P. Cooper - 2007 - Cognitive Science 31 (3):509-533.
WikiSilo: A Self-organizing, Crowd Sourcing System for Interdisciplinary Science [Supporting Paper].David Pierre Leibovitz, Robert L. West & Mike Belanger - manuscript
What levels of explanation in the behavioural sciences?Giuseppe Boccignone & Roberto Cordeschi (eds.) - 2015 - Frontiers Media SA.
References found in this work
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge University Press.
Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth.Larry Laudan - 1977 - University of California Press.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery.K. Popper - 1959 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):55-57.