Metaphysical Foundationalism and Theoretical Unification

Erkenntnis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Brenner
1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 325-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Skvoretz ◽  
Thomas J. Fararo

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 219-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Margolis ◽  
Stephen Laurence

AbstractConcepts are mental symbols that have semantic structure and processing structure. This approach (1) allows for different disciplines to converge on a common subject matter; (2) it promotes theoretical unification; and (3) it accommodates the varied processes that preoccupy Machery. It also avoids problems that go with his eliminativism, including the explanation of how fundamentally different types of concepts can be co-referential.


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregg Henriques

The outline for theoretically unified psychology is offered. A new epistemological system is used to provide a unique vantage point to examine how psychological science exists in relationship to the other sciences. This new view suggests that psychology can be thought of as existing between the central insights of B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud. Specifically, Skinner's fundamental insight is merged with cognitive neuroscience to understand how mind emerges out of life. This conception is then joined with Freud's fundamental insight to understand the evolutionary changes in mind that gave rise to human culture. By linking life to mind from the bottom and mind to culture from the top, psychology is effectively boxed in between biology and the social sciences.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pragathi Priyadharsini Balasubramani ◽  
Benjamin Y. Hayden

ABSTRACTEconomic choice and inhibition are two important elements of our cognitive repertoires that may be closely related. We and others have noted that during economic choice, options are typically considered serially; this fact provides important constraints on our understanding of choice. Notably, asynchronous contemplation means that each individual option is subject to an accept-reject decision. We have proposed that these component accept-reject decisions may have some kinship with stopping decisions. One prediction of this idea is that stopping and choice may reflect similar neural processes occurring in overlapping brain circuits. To test the idea, we recorded neuronal activity in orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) Area 13 while macaques performed a stop signal task interleaved with a structurally matched choice task. Using neural network decoders, we find that OFC ensembles have overlapping codes for stopping and choice: the decoder that was only trained to identify accept vs. reject trials performed with higher efficiency even when tested on the stop trials. These results provide tentative support for the idea that mechanisms underlying inhibitory control and choice selection may be subject to theoretical unification.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 740-742
Author(s):  
RAKESH M. BHATT

Pieter Muysken's keynote paper, “Language contact outcomes as a result of bilingual optimization strategies”, undertakes an ambitious project to theoretically unify different empirical outcomes of language contact, for instance, SLA, pidgins and Creoles, and code-switching. Muysken has dedicated a life-time to researching, rather successfully, various sub-fields of language contact, so I am very pleased to see him develop a synergistic model that reduces the complexities of different bilingual contact phenomena to four optimization strategies, the specific permutations of which yield the different, linguistically significant, generalizations. Such attempts are necessary, certainly, if the field of language contact has to make progress, theoretically. The success of such a theoretical unification, however, depends to a large extent on (i) the empirical mileage such unification receives; (ii) how well the assumptions underlying the logic of unification are theoretically motivated, to yield precise predictions about the orderliness of bilingual behavior; and (iii) the conceptual clarity required to understand the various links among the outcomes of language contact. On all these counts, Muysken's paper comes close to achieving success, though one notices several areas of fuzziness that need to be addressed for a competent model to fully emerge. In this short essay, I will point out two areas that need theoretical attention so that subsequent revisions of the present version of the model can address them. I will restrict my comments to code-switching, an extremely productive area of language contact, with which I am most familiar.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document