Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T18:29:45.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncertainty about the value of quantum probability for cognitive modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Christina Behme
Christina Behme*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4P9 Canada. Christina.Behme@dal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that the overly simplistic scenarios discussed by Pothos & Busemeyer (P&B) establish at best that quantum probability theory (QPT) is a logical possibility allowing distinct predictions from classical probability theory (CPT). The article fails, however, to provide convincing evidence for the proposal that QPT offers unique insights regarding cognition and the nature of human rationality.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 279 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–96.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1751/1999) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. & Sigmund, K. (1992) Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature, 355:250–53.Google Scholar
Shafir, E. & Tversky, A. (2004) Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. In: Preference, belief, and similarity: Selected writings by Amos Tversky, ed. Shafir, E., pp. 703–27. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (2004) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. In: Preference, belief, and similarity: Selected writings by Amos Tversky, ed. Shafir, E., pp. 221–56. MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Rijsbergen, C. (2004) The geometry of information retrieval. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Widdows, D. (2004) Geometry and meaning. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar