首页> 外文期刊>Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science >Mechanistic and non-mechanistic varieties of dynamical models in cognitive science: explanatory power, understanding, and the 'mere description' worry
【24h】

Mechanistic and non-mechanistic varieties of dynamical models in cognitive science: explanatory power, understanding, and the 'mere description' worry

机译:认知科学中动力学模型的机械和非机械种类:解释力,理解力和“单纯的描述”担忧

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

In the literature on dynamical models in cognitive science, two issues have recently caused controversy. First, what is the relation between dynamical and mechanistic models? I will argue that dynamical models can be upgraded to be mechanistic as well, and that there are mechanistic and non-mechanistic dynamical models. Second, there is the issue of explanatory power. Since it is uncontested the mechanistic models can explain, I will focus on the non-mechanistic variety of dynamical models. It is often claimed by proponents of mechanistic explanations that such models do not really explain cognitive phenomena (the 'mere description' worry). I will argue against this view. Although I agree that the three arguments usually offered to vindicate the explanatory power of non-mechanistic dynamical models (predictive power, counterfactual support, and unification) are not enough, I consider a fourth argument, namely that such models provide understanding. The Voss strong anticipation model is used to illustrate this.
机译:在有关认知科学动力学模型的文献中,最近有两个问题引起了争议。首先,动力学模型和力学模型之间有什么关系?我将论证动力学模型也可以升级为机械模型,并且存在机械模型和非机械模型。其次,存在解释力的问题。由于无争议的力学模型可以解释,因此我将重点介绍动力学模型的非力学种类。机械解释的支持者经常声称这种模型并不能真正解释认知现象(“单纯的描述”令人担忧)。我会反对这种观点。尽管我同意通常用来证明非机械动力学模型的解释能力的三个论点(预测能力,反事实支持和统一)是不够的,但我认为第四个论点是,这些模型可以提供理解。 Voss强烈的预期模型用于说明这一点。

著录项

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