Abstract
AbstractBayesian approaches to human cognition have been extensively advocated in the last decades, but sharp objections have been raised too within cognitive science. In this paper, we outline a diagnosis of what has gone wrong with the prevalent strand of Bayesian cognitive science (here labelled pure Bayesian cognitive science), relying on selected illustrations from the psychology of reasoning and tools from the philosophy of science. Bayesians’ reliance on so-called method of rational analysis is a key point of our discussion. We tentatively conclude on a constructive note, though: an appropriately modified variant of Bayesian cognitive science can still be coherently pursued, as some scholars have noted.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Torino
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference73 articles.
1. Achourioti, T., Fugard, A. J., & Stenning, K. (2014). The empirical study of norms is just what we are missing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01159
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The Adaptive Character of Thought. Erlbaum.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–485.
4. Barnes, E.C. (2022). Prediction versus accommodation. In E.N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition). URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/prediction-accommodation.
5. Baron, J. (1991). Some thinking is irrational. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 486–487.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献