Mike Tintner wrote:
Cognitive science treats humans as thinking like computers - rationally,
if boundedly rationally.
Which part of cognitive science treats humans as thinking irrationally,
as I have described ? (There may be some misunderstandings here which
hve to be ironed out, but I don't think my claim at all outrageous or
less than obvious).
All the social sciences treat humans as thinking rationally. It is
notorious that this doesn't fit the reality - especially for example in
economics. But the basic attitude is: well, it's the best model we've got.
It is hard to argue with you when you make statements that so flagrantly
contradict the facts: pick up a textbook of cognitive psychology (my
favorite is Eysenck and Keane, but you can try John Anderson...) and you
will find some chapters that specifically discuss the experimental
evidence for the fact that humans do not generally think in "rational"
ways. They study the irrationality, so how could they possibly assume
that humans are rational like computers? These people would not for one
minute go along with your statement that they "assume" that humans think
like computers.
That term "rational" is crucial. I am using it the way everyone in
cognitive science uses it.
Which part of cognitive science treats humans as thinking irrationally?
Egads: all of it!
Richard Loosemore.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
