Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The imaginary fundamentalists: The unshocking truth about Bayesian cognitive science

  • Nick Chater (a1), Noah Goodman (a2), Thomas L. Griffiths (a3), Charles Kemp (a4), Mike Oaksford (a5) and Joshua B. Tenenbaum (a6)...

If Bayesian Fundamentalism existed, Jones & Love's (J&L's) arguments would provide a necessary corrective. But it does not. Bayesian cognitive science is deeply concerned with characterizing algorithms and representations, and, ultimately, implementations in neural circuits; it pays close attention to environmental structure and the constraints of behavioral data, when available; and it rigorously compares multiple models, both within and across papers. J&L's recommendation of Bayesian Enlightenment corresponds to past, present, and, we hope, future practice in Bayesian cognitive science.

Hide All
N. Ali , N. Chater & M. Oaksford (2011) The mental representation of causal conditional reasoning: Mental models or causal models. Cognition 119:403–18.

J. R. Anderson (1991a) Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:471517.

N. Chater & M. Oaksford (1990) Autonomy, implementation and cognitive architecture: A reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn. Cognition 34:93107.

N. Chater , M. Oaksford , R. Nakisa & M. Redington (2003) Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90:6386.

N. Chater & P. Vitányi (2007) “Ideal learning” of natural language: Positive results about learning from positive evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 51:135–63.

A. C. Courville , N. D. Daw & D. S. Touretzky (2006) Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:294300.

J. A. Feldman & D. H. Ballard (1982) Connectionist models and their properties. Cognitive Science 6:205–54.

S. Foraker , T. Regier , N. Khetarpal , A. Perfors & J. B. Tenenbaum (2009) Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one. Cognitive Science 33:287300.

N. D. Goodman , J. B. Tenenbaum , J. Feldman & T. L. Griffiths (2008b) A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science 32(1):108–54.

N. D. Goodman , T. D. Ullman & J. B. Tenenbaum (2011) Learning a theory of causality. Psychological Review 118:110–19.

A. Gopnik , C. Glymour , D. Sobel , L. Schulz , T. Kushnir & D. Danks (2004) A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review 111(1):332.

T. L. Griffiths , N. Chater , C. Kemp , A. Perfors & J. Tenenbaum (2010) Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(8):357–64.

T. L. Griffiths & J. B. Tenenbaum (2009) Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review 116:661716.

A. Hsu & N. Chater (2010) The logical problem of language acquisition: A probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science 34:9721016.

C. Kemp & J. B. Tenenbaum (2008) The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:10687–692.

C. Kemp & J. B. Tenenbaum (2009) Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review 116:2058.

C. Kemp , N. D. Goodman & J. B. Tenenbaum (2010a) Learning to learn causal relations. Cognitive Science 34:11851243.

C. Kemp , J. B. Tenenbaum , S. Niyogi & T. L. Griffiths (2010b) A probabilistic model of theory formation. Cognition 114(2):165–96.

D. Marr (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.

J. L. McClelland (2010) Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2:751–70.

R. M. Neal (1992) Connectionist learning of belief networks. Artificial Intelligence 56:71113.

M. Oaksford & N. Chater (1994) A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review 101:608–31.

M. Oaksford & N. Chater (2003) Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and reevaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10:289318.

J. Pearl (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann.

A. Perfors , J. B. Tenenbaum & T. Regier (2011) The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition 118:306–38.

A. Perfors , J. Tenenbaum & E. Wonnacott (2010) Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language 37:607–42.

B. Rehder & R. Burnett (2005) Feature inference and the causal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 50:264314.

A. N. Sanborn , T. L. Griffiths & D. J. Navarro (2010a) Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review 117:1144–67.

J. B. Tenenbaum , C. Kemp , T. L. Griffiths & N. D. Goodman (2011) How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science 331(6022):1279–85.

E. Vul , D. Hanus & N. Kanwisher (2009b) Attention as inference: Selection is probabilistic, responses are all-or-none samples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138:546–60.

A. Yuille & D. Kersten (2006) Vision as Bayesian inference: Analysis by synthesis? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:301308.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 43 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 247 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.