The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The nature and plausibility of Cognitivism
Abstract
Cognitivism in psychology and philosophy is roughly the position that intelligent behavior can (only) be explained by appeal to internal “cognitive processes,” that is, rational thought in a very broad sense. Sections 1 to 5 attempt to explicate in detail the nature of the scientific enterprise that this intuition has inspired. That enterprise is distinctive in at least three ways: It relies on a style of explanation which is different from that of mathematical physics, in such a way that it is not basically concerned with quantitative equational laws; the states and processes with which it deals are “interpreted,” in the sense that they are regarded as meaningful or representational; and it is not committed to reductionism, but is open to reduction in a form different from that encountered in other sciences. Spelling these points out makes it clear that the Cognitivist study of the mind can be rigorous and empirical, despite its unprecedented theoretical form. The philosophical explication has another advantage as well: It provides a much needed framework for articulating questions about whether the Cognitivist approach is right or wrong. The last three sections take that advantage of the account, and address several such questions, pro and con.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Studies in the Logic of Explanation
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/286983 · Cited by 3,174
Behavior: The Control of Perception
Kuhn, A., & Powers, W. T. (1975) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2063243 · Cited by 2,398
Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I
Gödel, K. (1931) · Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik · doi:10.1007/bf01700692 · Cited by 2,395
Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis)
Fodor, J. A. (1974) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/bf00485230 · Cited by 1,815
Dennett, D. C., & The Journal of Philosophy, I. (1971) · Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2025382 · Cited by 994
Recall memory for visually presented chess positions
Frey, P. W., & Adesman, P. (1976) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03213216 · Cited by 129
Cited by
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Pretense and representation: The origins of "theory of mind."
Leslie, A. M. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.4.412 · Cited by 3,379
Harnad, S. (1990) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 · Cited by 4,235
“Psychology became more like an empirical science when, with the gradual advent of cognitivism [17] [25] [29], it became acceptable to make inferences about the unobservable processes underlying behavior.”
Lazarus, R. S. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.2.124 · Cited by 1,402
Mechanisms and the nature of causation
Glennan, S. (1996) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/bf00172853 · Cited by 894
Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3 · Cited by 757
The Nature of Physical Computation
Shagrir, O. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197552384.001.0001 · Cited by 70
Fish and microchips: on fish pain and multiple realization
Michel, M. (2019) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1133-4 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Haugeland, J.
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1978-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 215-226
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2027929700
- Cited by
- 512
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 47.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.