Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T00:56:35.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In praise of secular Bayesianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2011

Evan Heit  and
Shanna Erickson
Evan Heit
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, University of Californiaat Merced, Merced, CA 95343. [email protected]@ucmerced.eduhttp://faculty.ucmerced.edu/eheit
Shanna Erickson
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, University of Californiaat Merced, Merced, CA 95343. [email protected]@ucmerced.eduhttp://faculty.ucmerced.edu/eheit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is timely to assess Bayesian models, but Bayesianism is not a religion. Bayesian modeling is typically used as a tool to explain human data. Bayesian models are sometimes equivalent to other models, but have the advantage of explicitly integrating prior hypotheses with new observations. Any lack of representational or neural assumptions may be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2011 , pp. 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

Anderson, J. R. (1978) Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery. Psychological Review 85:249–77.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1990) On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in memory representation. In: Advances in social cognition, ed. Srull, T. K. & Wyer, R. S., pp. 61–88. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932) Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dube, C., Rotello, C. & Heit, E. (2010) Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It's a response bias effect. Psychological Review 117:831–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goel, V. (2007) Anatomy of deductive reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:435–441.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. K., Heit, E. & Swendsen, H. (2010) Inductive reasoning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1:278–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Heit, E. (1995) Belief revision in models of category learning. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pittsburgh, PA, July 22–25, 1995, ed. Moore, J. D. & Lehman, J. F., pp. 176–81. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heit, E. (1997) Knowledge and concept learning. In: Knowledge, concepts, and categories, ed. Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D., pp. 7–41. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heit, E. (1998) A Bayesian analysis of some forms of inductive reasoning. In: Rational models of cognition, ed. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., pp. 248–74. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heit, E. (2000) Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7:569–92.Google Scholar
Heit, E. (2001) Background knowledge and models of categorization. In: Similarity and categorization, ed. Hahn, U. & Ramscar, M., pp. 155–78. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heit, E. & Bott, L. (2000) Knowledge selection in category learning. In: Psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 39, ed. Medin, D. L., pp. 163–99. Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heit, E., Briggs, J. & Bott, L. (2004) Modeling the effects of prior knowledge on learning incongruent features of category members. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30:1065–81.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R. A. (1997) Nature, nurture, and the development of functional specializations: A computational approach. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4:299–309.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1994) Mental models, deductive reasoning, and the brain. In: The cognitive neurosciences, ed. Gazzaniga, M. S., pp. 999–1008. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009) Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review 116:20–58.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S. & Heit, E. (2006) Some targets for memory models. Journal of Memory and Language 55:441–46.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (1998) Connectionist models and Bayesian inference. In: Rational models of cognition, ed. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., pp. 21–53. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Chappell, M. (1998) Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review 105:724–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92:289–316.Google Scholar
Norman, K. A. & O'Reilly, R. C. (2003) Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: A complementary learning systems approach. Psychological Review 110(4):611–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rips, L. J. (1990) Reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology 41:321–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, L., Griffiths, T. L., Feldman, N. H. & Sanborn, A. N. (2010) Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17:443–64.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M. & Steyvers, M. (1997) A model for recognition memory: REM – Retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4:145–66.Google Scholar