Computational brain & behavior最新文献_第2页

Illusions of Understanding in the Sciences. 科学中的理解幻觉。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-30 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00271-1

Richard Shiffrin, Stephen Stigler, Frank Keil

{"title":"Illusions of Understanding in the Sciences.","authors":"Richard Shiffrin, Stephen Stigler, Frank Keil","doi":"10.1007/s42113-026-00271-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s42113-026-00271-1","url":null,"abstract":"Scientists seek to understand the causes of observed phenomena. Beliefs that they have succeeded are based on understanding that is rarely or possibly never complete, and varies in depth and quality. Most often scientists believe they understand more than they do, making their belief an illusion. This illusion then persists in explanations scientists provide in print, in talks, or in discussions. The illusion that a scientist has a valid and complete explanation tends to be magnified when the data are well described by mathematical and computer simulation models due to the precision of such models and their ability to predict well; prediction does not imply causality, but gives the illusion that it does. The first part of this essay supports the case for the universality of partial and incomplete levels of understanding by showing the difficulty of reaching a deep level of understanding for even a simple analysis and model that most scientists use and believe they understand: linear regression. The second part highlights some implications of the existence of many levels of understanding and explanation, and their use by scientists for design, testing, analysis, and theory development. It discusses the way that deduction and induction depend on the levels of understanding and the implications of the illusion that a scientist's understanding is deep. It makes a case that the many incomplete levels of understanding affect, often unwittingly, the ways scientists design experiments, test theories, comprehend, communicate, and teach.","PeriodicalId":72660,"journal":{"name":"Computational brain & behavior","volume":"9 3","pages":"337-359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13594008/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149027041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Are Semantic Representations Stable? A Bayesian Framework Applied to the Study of Quantifier Meaning. 语义表示稳定吗？贝叶斯框架在量词意义研究中的应用。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-27 eCollection Date: 2026-06-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00302-x

Alexandra Sarafoglou, Anne S F Giacobello, Henrik R Godmann, Tamar Johnson, Ingmar Visser, Julia M Haaf, Jakub Szymanik

{"title":"Are Semantic Representations Stable? A Bayesian Framework Applied to the Study of Quantifier Meaning.","authors":"Alexandra Sarafoglou, Anne S F Giacobello, Henrik R Godmann, Tamar Johnson, Ingmar Visser, Julia M Haaf, Jakub Szymanik","doi":"10.1007/s42113-026-00302-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s42113-026-00302-x","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers have begun using Bayesian hierarchical modeling to study semantic representations, for instance, in the context of natural language quantifiers such as most, few, and more than half. Building on previous work, we propose a Bayesian hierarchical model to disentangle three key semantic parameters: the meaning threshold of quantifiers, the vagueness surrounding meaning thresholds, and response noise. We use this model to test the stability of semantic representations over time and across different paradigms. To examine stability over time, we analyzed existing data ([Formula: see text]) from Ramotowska et al. (2023). Contrary to the conclusions drawn by the original authors, we found overwhelming evidence in favor of the hypothesis that semantic representations change over time ([Formula: see text]). At the same time, we found overwhelming evidence that the relative ordering of meaning thresholds within individuals remained stable ([Formula: see text]). Next, we conducted a new experiment ([Formula: see text]) to test stability across paradigms, specifically comparing a linguistic paradigm to a visual one. Here too, we found overwhelming support for differences in between-subject variability in meaning thresholds across paradigms ([Formula: see text]) and for differences in vagueness ([Formula: see text]). Our findings challenge the assumption that semantic representations of logical vocabulary have stable, fixed values, while suggesting that their relative ordering remains stable within individuals. The model we propose provides an effective framework for studying the semantics of quantifiers, detecting individual-level effects, and explicitly accounting for potential instability.","PeriodicalId":72660,"journal":{"name":"Computational brain & behavior","volume":"9 2","pages":"281-318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13246847/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148220864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Is the "Theory-theory" of Understanding a Mistake? An Interactive Perspective on Knowledge and Explanation. “理论-理论”的理解是错误的吗？知识与解释的互动视角。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-24 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00298-4

Simon Myers, Nick Chater

引用次数: 0

Auxiliary Assumptions as an Additional Reason for Incomplete Understanding. 作为不完全理解的附加原因的辅助假设。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-22 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00294-8

David Trafimow

引用次数: 0

Illusions of Understanding from Outsourcing Thinking to LLMs. 从外包思维到法学硕士的理解幻觉。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-22 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00288-6

Nicole Cruz

引用次数: 0

Are Scientists Naïve Humans? 科学家是Naïve人类吗？

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-21 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00296-6

Steven A Sloman, Almos C Molnar

引用次数: 0

Imprecision Can Promote Illusions of Understanding. 不精确可以促进理解的幻觉。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-21 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00291-x

Julia M Haaf, Nicole Cruz, Anne Giacobello

引用次数: 0

Prediction, Risk, and Illusion. 预测、风险和幻觉。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-20 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00285-9

Kenny Yu, Maria M Robinson

引用次数: 0

On the Difficulty of Identifying Cognitive Causes. 论识别认知原因的困难。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-20 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00289-5

Heinrich R Liesefeld, James T Townsend, Markus Janczyk

引用次数: 0

The Scope of Inquiry and the Illusions of Low Expectations: A Commentary on "Illusions of Understanding in the Sciences". 探究的范围与低期望的幻觉——评《科学中的理解幻觉》。

Computational brain & behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-20 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s42113-026-00280-0

Philipp Koralus, Vincent Wang-Mascianica, Marco Ragni

引用次数: 0