Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):607-609 (2003)
I have three types of interrelated comments. First, on the choice of the proposed criteria, I argue against any list and for a system of criteria. Second, on grading, I suggest modifications with respect to consciousness and development. Finally, on the choice of “theories” for evaluation, I argue for Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection instead of connectionism (classical or not).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Prediction, Explanation, and Testability as Criteria for Judging Statistical Theories.Brown Grier - 1975 - Philosophy of Science 42 (4):373-383.
McAllister's Aesthetics in Science: A Critical Notice.David Davies - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):25 – 32.
Free Will, Determinism, and the Theory of Important Criteria.Michael A. Slote - 1969 - Inquiry 12 (1-4):317-38.
The Newell Test for a Theory of Cognition.John R. Anderson & Christian Lebiere - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):587-601.
How to Explain Oppression: Criteria of Adequacy for Normative Explanatory Theories.Ann E. Cudd - 2005 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (1):20-49.
Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of Cognitive Architectures.Sashank Varma - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (7):1329-1351.
Formal and Material Theories in Philosophy of Science: A Methodological Interpretation.Alan C. Love - 2010 - In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), Epsa Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer. pp. 175--185.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #484,585 of 2,154,175 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #397,226 of 2,154,175 )
How can I increase my downloads?