Not every model in cognitive science is (or should be) mechanistic.

IF 8.2 1区心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Behavioral and Brain Sciences Pub Date : 2026-10-02 DOI:10.1017/S0140525X26106104

Danielle J Williams

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Haueis and Colaço (H&C) label all models as cognitive. However, just because cognitive science is so-called doesn't mean that all models are. When type differences are ignored, an argument runs the risk of prescribing a monist modeling strategy. In their case: mechanistic. Such a prescription is empirically inadequate and overly restrictive, as modeling in cognitive science relies on many modeling types.

查看原文本刊更多论文

并非认知科学中的每个模型都是（或应该是）机械性的。

Haueis和cola (H&C)将所有模型标记为认知模型。然而，仅仅因为认知科学是所谓的并不意味着所有的模型都是如此。当类型差异被忽略时，参数就会有规定一元建模策略的风险。在他们的例子中：机械的。由于认知科学中的建模依赖于许多建模类型，这样的处方在经验上是不充分的，并且过于严格。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 医学-行为科学

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

1.70%

发文量

353

期刊介绍： Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is a highly respected journal that employs an innovative approach called Open Peer Commentary. This format allows for the publication of noteworthy and contentious research from various fields including psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, and cognitive science. Each article is accompanied by 20-40 commentaries from experts across these disciplines, as well as a response from the author themselves. This unique setup creates a captivating forum for the exchange of ideas, critical analysis, and the integration of research within the behavioral and brain sciences, spanning topics from molecular neurobiology and artificial intelligence to the philosophy of the mind.