Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):55-56 (2001)
AbstractNotwithstanding many similarities between Thelen et al.'s and Piaget's accounts of the A-not-B error, we argue that, in contrast to Piaget, they do not explicitly address the issue of objectivity. We suggest that this omission is partly due to the fact that Thelen et al. and Piaget's accounts are pitched at different levels of explanation
Similar books and articles
Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post.S. French & H. Kamminga (eds.) - 1993 - Dordrecht: Reidel.
A Novel Interpretation of Plato’s Theory of Forms.P. X. Monaghan - 2010 - Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum.H. M. Malm - 1989 - Hypatia 4 (3):128-135.
Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents.Peter J. Taylor - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304-310.
The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments.Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Constructing an understanding of mind: The development of children's social understanding within social interaction.Jeremy I. M. Carpendale & Charlie Lewis - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):79-96.
References found in this work
No references found.