Anybody else see a problem with highly-paid researchers at leading institutions refusing to engage in reading outside their own discipline? (Aside: book in question-The Algebraic Mind-is not general audience; it's a technical book in MIT Press's prestigious Bradford series.)https://twitter.com/zergylord/status/1200694810904018945 …
-
I wouldn't go for a moral argument. Let's keep it scientific. I do believe that The Algebraic Mind is one of the must reads of anyone interested in Cognitive Neuroscience Theory, even if you are wrong. BTW, I skimmed though a paper by Willem Zuidema that claims you are wrong.
-
-
I meant something newer, like this one https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-019-01602-z …. What's your last answer to Zuidema?
-
He's not denying existence of rules (= operations over variables), he's (very reasonably) asking for more detail. It's certainly not a refutation of my original view, and it shows that the issues raised by my 1999 Science article continue to be important & unresolved.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Great. I had a paper rejected in Cog Sci about this a few years ago (before this wave of DL). I hope there's still work to do. I really believe you were into something there, even if I am not sure about you precise formulation. I do recommend you book to everyone.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.