Literature DB >> 16443448

Principled and statistical connections in common sense conception.

Sandeep Prasada1, Elaine M Dillingham.   

Abstract

Nominal concepts represent things as tokens of types. We report six experiments that investigate the nature of the relations we represent between the type of thing something is (e.g. DOG) and its other properties. The experiments provide evidence that we represent principled connections between the type of thing something is (e.g. DOG) and some of its properties (k-properties; e.g. having four legs for dogs), but not other properties (t-properties; e.g. being brown for dogs). Principled connections are different from logical, statistical, and causal connections. Principled connections, (i) license the expectation that tokens of the type will generally possess the k-property, (ii) license explanation of the presence of k-properties in tokens of a type by reference to the type of thing it is, and (iii) license normative expectations concerning the presence of the k-property in tokens of the type. The experiments provide evidence for all three of these aspects of principled connections. The experiments also demonstrate that principled connections must be distinguished from merely strong statistical connections. We suggest that principled connections are one of the fundamental types of relations (in addition to logical, statistical, and causal relations) in terms of which our conceptual knowledge is structured. We argue that principled connections reveal a formal mode of understanding and explanation. This mode of understanding complements other modes of understanding that have been studied within the theory-based approach to conceptual representation. Finally, we suggest that kind representations are distinguished from representations of mere types by the representation of principled connections to k-properties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16443448     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  30 in total

1.  Do lions have manes? For children, generics are about kinds rather than quantities.

Authors:  Amanda C Brandone; Andrei Cimpian; Sarah-Jane Leslie; Susan A Gelman
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2012-01-11

2.  Quantified statements are recalled as generics: evidence from preschool children and adults.

Authors:  Sarah-Jane Leslie; Susan A Gelman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Fast-mapping placeholders: Using words to talk about kinds.

Authors:  Susan A Gelman; Amanda C Brandone
Journal:  Lang Learn Dev       Date:  2010-07-01

4.  Developmental changes in the understanding of generics.

Authors:  Susan A Gelman; Paul Bloom
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-11-13

5.  Generic language in scientific communication.

Authors:  Jasmine M DeJesus; Maureen A Callanan; Graciela Solis; Susan A Gelman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Contextual utility affects the perceived quality of explanations.

Authors:  Nadya Vasilyeva; Daniel Wilkenfeld; Tania Lombrozo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-10

Review 7.  The scope of formal explanation.

Authors:  Sandeep Prasada
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-10

8.  Generics designate kinds but not always essences.

Authors:  Alexander Noyes; Frank C Keil
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Differences in preschoolers' and adults' use of generics about novel animals and artifacts: a window onto a conceptual divide.

Authors:  Amanda C Brandone; Susan A Gelman
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-11-28

10.  Generic language facilitates children's cross-classification.

Authors:  Simone P Nguyen; Susan A Gelman
Journal:  Cogn Dev       Date:  2012-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.