{"title":"提出DN(C)-模型的物质证据的良好校准的主张关于过去的文化。","authors":"David J Grüning, Lukas J Grüning","doi":"10.1017/S0140525X24000840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stibbard-Hawkes presents a much-needed case for distinguishing between different types of evidence for cognition in past cultures. However, he does not outline an applicable approach for moving forward in making claims about the cognition of past cultures. We present an initial model for calibrating both absolute and comparative claims about past cultures' cognition and other traits.</p>","PeriodicalId":8698,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","volume":"48 ","pages":"e10"},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proposing the DN(C)-model of material evidence for well-calibrated claims about past cultures.\",\"authors\":\"David J Grüning, Lukas J Grüning\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0140525X24000840\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stibbard-Hawkes presents a much-needed case for distinguishing between different types of evidence for cognition in past cultures. However, he does not outline an applicable approach for moving forward in making claims about the cognition of past cultures. We present an initial model for calibrating both absolute and comparative claims about past cultures' cognition and other traits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral and Brain Sciences\",\"volume\":\"48 \",\"pages\":\"e10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral and Brain Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24000840\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24000840","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Proposing the DN(C)-model of material evidence for well-calibrated claims about past cultures.
Stibbard-Hawkes presents a much-needed case for distinguishing between different types of evidence for cognition in past cultures. However, he does not outline an applicable approach for moving forward in making claims about the cognition of past cultures. We present an initial model for calibrating both absolute and comparative claims about past cultures' cognition and other traits.
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.