Rules, abstractions, and evolution

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):345-346 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Perruchet & Vinter's article, for all its breadth and scope, has several deep problems: specifically, an eccentric notion of rule, a narrow notion of what it means for a mental instantiation to be abstract, and a failure to take into account fundamental principles of evolutionary biology. While not the only problems, these three are sufficient to seriously weaken their arguments.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,590

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Does the SOC theory avoid unconscious rule use?Carol A. Seger - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):353-353.
What can neuroscience explain?John Symons - 2001 - Brain and Mind 2 (2):243-248.
Rules, Intentions and Social Behavior: A Reassessment of Peter Winch.Jordi Fairhurst - 2019 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 50 (4):429-445.
What sort of representation is conscious?Zoltan Dienes & Josef Perner - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):336-337.
Associative learning: A generalisation too far.Martin Redington - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):351-352.
The Concept of Rule and the Explanation of Linguistic Behavior.Michael Andrew Popich - 1980 - Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton
The structure of microbial evolutionary theory.J. Sapp - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (4):780-795.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
64 (#87,988)

6 months
19 (#786,843)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references