Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):87-88 (2009)

Abstract
Oaksford & Chater (O&C) rely on a data fitting approach to show that a Bayesian model captures the core reasoning data better than its logicist rivals. The problem is that O&C's modeling has focused exclusively on response output data. I argue that this exclusive focus is biasing their conclusions. Recent studies that focused on the processes that resulted in the response selection are more positive for the role of logic
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X09000326
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,104
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Choice Output and Choice Processing: An Analogy to Similarity.Arthur B. Markman - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):423-424.
Remarks on "Random Sequences".Branden Fitelson & Daniel Osherson - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Logic 12 (1).
Corruption and Representations of Scholarly Output.Robert Liebler - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):259-269.
Peirce: Underdetermination, Agnosticism, and Related Mistakes.P. D. Magnus - 2005 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 48 (1):26 – 37.
Innate Cognitive Capacities.Muhammad ali KhAlidi - 2007 - Mind and Language 22 (1):92-115.
Accidental Necessity and Logical Determinism.Alfred J. Freddoso - 1983 - Journal of Philosophy 80 (5):257-278.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-02-13

Total views
22 ( #479,449 of 2,427,999 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #61,405 of 2,427,999 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes