Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:59:55.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Digging beneath Rules and Similarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2005

Arthur B. Markman*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html
Sergey Blok*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html
Kyungil Kim*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html
Levi Larkey*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html
Lisa R. Narvaez*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html
C. Hunt Stilwell*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html
Eric Taylor*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/markman/index.html

Abstract

Pothos suggests dispensing with the distinction between rules and similarity, without defining what is meant by either term. We agree that there are problems with the distinction between rules and similarity, but believe these will be solved only by exploring the representations and processes underlying cases purported to involve rules and similarity.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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.)