On the explanatory power of cognitive statements
In the present paper, I offer a set of critical reflections on what cognitive psychologists, radical behaviorists, and philosophers of sciences have said about cognitive explanations. My starting point is an application of three models of explanation, namely, nomological-deductive, statistical relev...
| Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication Date: | 2010 |
| Country: | México |
| Institution: | UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO |
| Repository: | Acta Comportamentalia |
| Language: | Spanish |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/14645 |
| Online Access: | https://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/acom/article/view/14645 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | explanation cognitive statements cognitive states and processes inobservables underlying mechanism observational- theoretical dichotomy neuroscientific statements cognitivism radical behaviorism. explicación enunciados cognoscitivos estados y procesos cognoscitivos mecanismos subyacentes dicotomía observacional-teórico enunciados neurocientíficos cognoscitivismo conductismo radical. |
| Summary: | In the present paper, I offer a set of critical reflections on what cognitive psychologists, radical behaviorists, and philosophers of sciences have said about cognitive explanations. My starting point is an application of three models of explanation, namely, nomological-deductive, statistical relevance, and inference to the best explanation. According to the three models, cognitive statements possess an explanatory power in so far as they involve theoretical terms that supposedly are partially interpreted, that is, terms that refer to states and processes that not directly observable but constitute underlying mechanisms of behavior. However, an examination of the statements from the neurosciences forces us to reconsider the explanatory power of cognitive statements. My central argument in this regard is that although explanations of behavior that involve cognitive statements are epistemologically less satisfactory than those that involve neuroscientific statements. |
|---|