No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Enlightenment grows from fundamentals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 August 2011
Abstract
Jones & Love (J&L) contend that the Bayesian approach should integrate process constraints with abstract computational analysis. We agree, but argue that the fundamentalist/enlightened dichotomy is a false one: Enlightened research is deeply intertwined with – and to a large extent is impossible without – the basic, fundamental work upon which it is based.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
References
Colunga, E. & Smith, L. (2005) From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning. Psychological Review
112(2):347–82.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007) Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science
10:307–21.Google Scholar
Klayman, J. & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review
94:211–28.Google Scholar
Navarro, D. J., Dry, M. J. & Lee, M. D. (in press) Sampling assumptions in inductive generalization. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Navarro, D. J. & Perfors, A. F. (2009) Learning time-varying categories. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, ed. Taatgen, N., van Rijn, H., Schomaker, L. & Nerbonne, J., pp. 419–24. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Navarro, D. J. & Perfors, A. F. (2011) Hypothesis generation, sparse categories and the positive test strategy. Psychological Review
118:120–34.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1994) A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review
101:608–31.Google Scholar
Perfors, A. (2011) Memory limitations alone do not lead to over-regularization: An experimental and computational investigation. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, ed. Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C. & Shipley, T. F., pp. 3274–79. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. (2009) Learning to learn categories. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Taatgen, N., van Rijn, H., Schomaker, L. & Nerbonne, J., pp. 136–41. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. & Wonnacott, E. (2010) Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language
37:607–42.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Y., Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2008) Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic versus rational approaches. Memory and Cognition
36(6):1057–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L. & Navarro, D. J. (2010a) Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review
117:1144–67.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1987) Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science
237:1317–23.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B. & Griffiths, T. L. (2001) Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
24(4):629–40.Google Scholar
Wason, P. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
12:129–40.Google Scholar
Xu, F. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007a) Sensitivity to sampling in Bayesian word learning. Developmental Science
10(3):288–97.Google Scholar
Target article
Enlightenment grows from fundamentals
Related commentaries (1)
Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition