@DrYohanJohn @julioalcante I recommend this two: https://t.co/1bsxlI1TJI https://t.co/lDeLYO19UC
RT @gualtieropicc: There was a cognitive neuroscience revolution, though without much in the way of incommensurability. Incommensurability…
RT @gualtieropicc: There was a cognitive neuroscience revolution, though without much in the way of incommensurability. Incommensurability…
RT @gualtieropicc: There was a cognitive neuroscience revolution, though without much in the way of incommensurability. Incommensurability…
RT @gualtieropicc: There was a cognitive neuroscience revolution, though without much in the way of incommensurability. Incommensurability…
RT @gualtieropicc: There was a cognitive neuroscience revolution, though without much in the way of incommensurability. Incommensurability…
There was a cognitive neuroscience revolution, though without much in the way of incommensurability. Incommensurability is not as deep or serious as it was made to be, anyway
In our paper we warn about the risks of construing (and talking about) the shift from (classical) Cognitive Psychology to Cognitive Neuroscience in terms of "Revolution" -- as is done e.g. by Worth Boone and @gualtieropicc here: https://t.co/ytwuhNO9go
@IrisVanRooij @BorsboomDenny @FroehlichMarcel Yes, that paper is about levels of organization, not about Marr's levels. But I also think that Marr's levels are problematic (even though I have not written about that), see for example these papers: https://t
@aasok @hakwanlau But we're getting closer nowadays ;) https://t.co/tiSAogEwL9
Currently reading: -"Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of Intentionality" by Morgan & Piccinini. https://t.co/yojHaMd9Eg -"The cognitive neuroscience revolution" by Boone & Piccinini. https://t.co/1bsxlI1TJI
@Foreman1David @dranniehickox A complementary take: https://t.co/5L3d1wrYct
The cognitive neuroscience revolution - Online First - Springer http://t.co/nqPn1bM4XR