No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Positing numerosities may be metaphysically extravagant; positing representation of numerosities is not
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2021
Abstract
Clarke and Beck (C&B) assume that approximate number system (ANS) representations should be assigned referents from our scientific ontology. However, many representations, both in perception and cognition, do not straightforwardly refer to such entities. If we reject C&B's assumption, many possible contents for ANS representations besides number are compatible with the evidence C&B cite.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Fernandez, J. M., & Farell, B. (2009). Is perceptual space inherently non-Euclidean? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(2), 86–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, C. S. (2016). Perceptual relativity. Philosophical Topics, 44, 179–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (2016). The skewed view from here: Normal geometrical misperception. Philosophical Topics, 44(2), 231–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. W. (2005). Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx.Google Scholar
Prettyman, A. (2019). Perceptual precision. Philosophical Psychology, 32(6), 923–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
The number sense represents (rational) numbers
Related commentaries (26)
A rational explanation for links between the ANS and math
Constructing rationals through conjoint measurement of numerator and denominator as approximate integer magnitudes in tradeoff relations
Contents of the approximate number system
Distinguishing the specific from the recognitional and the canonical, and the nature of ratios
Non-symbolic and symbolic number and the approximate number system
Not so rational: A more natural way to understand the ANS
Numbers in action
Numerical cognition needs more and better distinctions, not fewer
Numerical cognition: Unitary or diversified system(s)?
Numerosities are not ersatz numbers
Numerosity, area-osity, object-osity? Oh my
Perceived number is not abstract
Positing numerosities may be metaphysically extravagant; positing representation of numerosities is not
Ratio-based perceptual foundations for rational numbers, and perhaps whole numbers, too?
Real models: The limits of behavioural evidence for understanding the ANS
Representation of pure magnitudes in ANS
Second-order characteristics don't favor a number-representing ANS
Sizes, ratios, approximations: On what and how the ANS represents
The approximate number system represents magnitude and precision
The approximate number system represents rational numbers: The special case of an empty set
The number sense does not represent numbers, but cardinality comparisons
The number sense represents multitudes and magnitudes
The perception of quantity ain't number: Missing the primacy of symbolic reference
Unwarranted philosophical assumptions in research on ANS
Weighted numbers
What are we doing when we perceive numbers?
Author response
Numbers, numerosities, and new directions