Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T23:53:38.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language-of-thought hypothesis: Wrong, but sometimes useful?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Adina L. Roskies Open the ORCID record for Adina L. Roskies [Opens in a new window]  and
Colin Allen Open the ORCID record for Colin Allen [Opens in a new window]
Adina L. Roskies
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA adina.roskies@dartmouth.edu, https://faculty-directory.dartmouth.edu/adina-l-roskies
Colin Allen
Affiliation:
Department of History & Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA colin.allen@pitt.edu https://www.hps.pitt.edu/people/colin-allen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quilty-Dunn et al. maintain that language-of-thought hypothesis (LoTH) is the best game in town. We counter that LoTH is merely one source of models – always wrong, sometimes useful. Their reasons for liking LoTH are compatible with the view that LoTH provides a sometimes pragmatically useful level of abstraction over processes and mechanisms that fail to fully live up to LoT requirements.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e288
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Andrews, M. (2021). The math is not the territory: Navigating the free energy principle. Biology & Philosophy, 36(3), 30. doi:10.1007/s10539-021-09807-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, R. B. (in prep.). On the proper treatment of dynamics in Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), 791–799, doi:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Science, 1373, 1295–1306. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0284CrossRefGoogle Scholar