Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:52:42.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resource-rationality as a normative standard of human rationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Matteo Colombo
Matteo Colombo*
Affiliation:
Tilburg Center for Logic, Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Tilburg University, 5000LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. [email protected]://mteocolphi.wordpress.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lieder and Griffiths introduce resource-rational analysis as a methodological device for the empirical study of the mind. But they also suggest resource-rationality serves as a normative standard to reassess the limits and scope of human rationality. Although the methodological status of resource-rational analysis is convincing, its normative status is not.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e5
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bowers, J. S. & Davis, C. J. (2012a) Bayesian just-so stories in psychology and neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin 138:389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J. S. & Davis, C. J. (2012b) Is that what Bayesians believe? Reply to Griffiths, Chater, Norris, and Pouget. Psychological Bulletin 138:423–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R. A. (2017) Normative theories of rational choice: Expected utility. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N., Metaphysics Research Lab. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Colombo, M. (2019) Learning and reasoning. In: The Routledge handbook of the computational mind, ed. Sprevak, M. & Colombo, M., pp. 381–96. Routledge.Google Scholar
Colombo, M., Elkin, L. & Hartmann, S. (forthcoming) Being realist about Bayes, and the predictive processing theory of mind. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (first online 03 August 2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy059.Google Scholar
Colombo, M. & Hartmann, S. (2017) Bayesian cognitive science, unification, and explanation. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 68:451–84.Google Scholar
Colombo, M. & Seriès, P. (2012) Bayes in the brain. On Bayesian modelling in neuroscience. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 63:697–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (2001) The evolution of reason. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, H. (2009) The bounds of reason. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Norris, D. & Pouget, A. (2012) How the Bayesians got their beliefs (and what those beliefs actually are): Comments on Bower and Davis. Psychological Bulletin 138:415–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. (2008) Arguments for − or against − probabilism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59:793–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marblestone, A. H., Wayne, G. & Kording, K. P. (2016) Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 10:94. doi:10.3389/fncom.2016.00094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahnev, D. & Denison, R. N. (2018a) Suboptimality in perceptual decision making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41:e223, 1–66. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18000936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, R., Stich, S. & Bishop, M. (2002) Ending the rationality wars: How to make disputes about human rationality disappear. In: Common sense, reasoning and rationality, ed. Elio, R., pp. 236–68. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2008) Rationality in economics: Constructivist and ecological forms. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar