The rationality debate: Look to ontogeny before phylogeny

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):698-698 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Subjects have a rich history of decision making which would be expected to affect reasoning in new tasks. For example, averaging, a strategy that is effectively used in many decisions, may help explain the conjunction fallacy. Before resorting to accounts based on phylogeny, more parsimonious accounts in terms of ontogeny should be explored.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,486

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

Ontogeny does not always recapitulate phylogeny.Charles T. Snowdon & Jeffrey A. French - 1979 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (3):397-398.
The phylogeny fallacy and the ontogeny fallacy.Adam Hochman - 2013 - Biology and Philosophy 28 (4):593-612.
Language, tools, and brain revisited.Patricia M. Greenfield - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):159-163.
Similarity in logical reasoning and decision-making.Horacio Arló-Costa - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):14-15.
Ontogeny and Phylogeny.Phillip R. Sloan - 1980 - British Journal for the History of Science 13 (1):50-55.
Darwin and development: Why ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny for human concepts.Frank C. Keil & George E. Newman - 2010 - In Denis Mareschal, Paul Quinn & Stephen E. G. Lea, The Making of Human Concepts. Oxford University Press. pp. 317.
The phylogeny and ontogeny of adaptations.E. Dickins Thomas - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (3):283-284.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
35 (#690,451)

6 months
10 (#314,568)

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