• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Are Humans the Only Theorizers?: A Philosophical Examination of the Theory-Theory of Human Uniqueness.
【24h】

Are Humans the Only Theorizers?: A Philosophical Examination of the Theory-Theory of Human Uniqueness.

机译：人类是唯一的理论家吗？：对人类独特性理论-理论的哲学检验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

One of the central problems in comparative psychology is to explain how humans came to have such exceptional cognitive abilities -- we alone have sophisticated languages, cultures, tool use, and scientific reasoning -- despite our recent common ancestry with our closest primate relatives. A promising hypothesis is that humans alone evolved the capacity to theorize, to reason about theoretical entities, events, and relations in a way analogous to theory usage in scientific practice. In this dissertation, I examine this hypothesis, the theory-theory of human uniqueness.;I begin by elucidating a historical debate between Charles Darwin and C. Lloyd Morgan regarding our mental continuity with animals in which they employ competing principles of parsimony that are still influential in cognitive ethology today. I argue that these principles are actually instantiations of the same vera causa principle of parsimony and that the disagreement stems from their conflicting theories of the human mind, with Morgan forwarding a view similar to that of theory-theorists today.;Next, I turn to the contemporary developments of the account. After formulating the most plausible version of the theory-theory, I raise serious challenges to the plausibility and testability of this view. I demonstrate that a common argument that has been used to deny that animals are theorists threatens to undermine the claim that theorizing plays some special epistemic role in human cognition, in part because it bears strong similarities to an argument in the philosophy of science, Hempel's theoretician's dilemma, which purports to show that theorizing is superfluous.;After developing the strongest version of this challenge, I first show how several attempts to resolve this dilemma fail to adequately resolve the dilemma for the purposes of the theory-theory. Then, I propose two functions that theories play in human cognition and demonstrate how we can use these roles to make sense of several common intuitive theories. Lastly, I exploit insights in causal modeling to propose a novel variant of the triangulation methodology in cognitive science to test for the presence of theoretical beliefs in light of the functions that they play.
机译：比较心理学的中心问题之一是解释人类如何具有如此卓越的认知能力-尽管我们最近与最接近的灵长类动物亲戚有着共同的祖先，但我们独自拥有复杂的语言，文化，工具使用和科学推理。一个有前途的假设是，人类独自发展了以类似于科学实践中的理论用法的方式进行理论，推理理论实体，事件和关系的能力。在本文中，我研究了人类唯一性的理论理论-这一假说。首先，我阐明了查尔斯·达尔文与劳埃德·摩根之间的历史性辩论，讨论了我们对动物的心理连续性，在这些动物中他们运用了简约的竞争原理。在当今的认知行为学中具有影响力。我认为这些原则实际上是相同的维拉·卡萨斯简约原则的实例化，并且分歧源于它们相互矛盾的人类心灵理论，摩根提出了与当今理论理论家相似的观点。该帐户的当代发展。在提出了最合理的理论理论版本之后，我对这种观点的合理性和可检验性提出了严峻的挑战。我证明了一个被用来否认动物是理论家的普遍论点有可能破坏这种说法，即理论化在人类认知中起着特殊的认识论作用，部分原因是它与汉普尔理论家的科学哲学中的论点非常相似。困境，似乎表明理论化是多余的。在开发了最严峻的挑战之后，我首先展示了解决这一困境的几次尝试如何未能充分解决理论理论的难题。然后，我提出了理论在人类认知中发挥的两个功能，并展示了我们如何使用这些角色来理解几种常见的直观理论。最后，我利用因果模型中的见解提出了认知科学中三角剖分方法的一种新颖变体，以根据理论信念的作用来测试理论信念的存在。

著录项

  • 作者

    Clatterbuck, Hayley A.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Wisconsin - Madison.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Wisconsin - Madison.;
  • 学科 Philosophy of science.;Cognitive psychology.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2015
  • 页码 259 p.
  • 总页数 259
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号