Parsimony and the Formulation of Developmental Hypotheses
Lecturer: Richard Moore
- Introducing Morgan’s Canon
Problem 1: What are ‘lower’ cognitive processes?
Problem 2: When is it necessary to appeal to ‘higher’ cognitive processes?
- Introducing Cladistic Parsimony
Illustrative case: Cladistic parsimony and Morgan’s canon can pull in different directions
Tentative conclusion: Appeals to parsimony must be argued for carefully and on a case by case basis
Slides
References
Andrews, K & Huss, B (2014) Anthropomorphism, anthropectomy, and the null hypothesis. Biology & Philosophy, 29(5), 711-729.
Buckner, C (2013) Morgan’s Canon, meet Hume’s Dictum: avoiding anthropofabulation in cross-species comparisons. Biology & Philosophy, 28(5), 853-871.
Meketa, I (2014) A critique of the principle of cognitive simplicity in comparative cognition. Biology & Philosophy, 29(5), 731-745.
Mikhalevich, I (2015) Experiment and animal minds: why the choice of the null hypothesis matters. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 1059-1069.
Shettleworth, S (2010) Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative psychology. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(11), 477-481.
Sober, E (2005) Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology. In Daston & Mittman (eds.) Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism. Columbia UP.
Starzak, T (2017) Interpretations without justification: a general argument against Morgan’s Canon. Synthese, 194(5), 1681-1701.
Wynne, C (2004) The perils of anthropomorphism. Nature, 428(6983), 606-606.