Let’s Be Flexible: Our Interpretive/Explanatory Toolbox, or In Praise of Using a Range of Tools

Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (2):261-299 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper explores the role and limits of cognitive simulation in understanding or explaining others. In simulation, one puts one's own cognitive processes to work on pretend input similar to that one supposes that the other plausibly had. Such a process is highly useful. However, it is also limited in important ways. Several limitations fall out from the various forms of cognitive diversity. Some of this diversity results from cultural differences, or from differences in individuals' cognitive biographies. Such diversity is clearly important in history. Some sorts of such diversity are discussed, with attention to the results of contemporary cognitive science. It is argued that one must sometimes employ mixed (simulation-based/theory-based) strategies, and that sometimes what is done will be neither purely simulation nor purely theory-based.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,072

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-07-16

Downloads
85 (#246,916)

6 months
15 (#207,985)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Henderson
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References found in this work

Folk psychology as simulation.Robert M. Gordon - 1986 - Mind and Language 1 (2):158-71.
The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Steven A. Sloman - 1996 - Psychological Bulletin 119 (1):3-22.
Mirror neurons and practices: A response to Lizardo.Stephen P. Turner - 2007 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37 (3):351–371.

Add more references