Abstract
Abstract This paper is a critique of Nick Chater and Mike Oaksford’s attempt to apply the programme of ‘rational analysis’ to human cognitive behaviour and, more particularly, challenges their claim that ‘everyday’ rationality is based on ‘formal’ rationality. I begin with some critical remarks about the way in which they distinguish between ‘everyday’ and ‘formal’ rationality and then explore a possible relationship between the two which they over- look but which is suggested by some remarks of John Locke’s. Next I raise some doubts about the programme of ‘rational analysis’ itself and about the parallels which Chater and Oaksford claim to see between their explanation of everyday rationality and the use of optimality models in evolutionary biology.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
