Skip to main content Accessibility help

Login Alert

Cancel
Log in
×
×
Register
Log In
(0) Cart
Logo for Cambridge Core from Cambridge University Press. Click to return to homepage.
Logo for Cambridge Core from Cambridge University Press. Click to return to homepage.
Cited by
  • Crossref logo 273
  • Google Scholar logo
Crossref Citations
Crossref logo
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
McNair, Simon and Feeney, Aidan 2011. Norms and high-level cognition: Consequences, trends, and antidotes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, Issue. 5, p. 260.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Gilet, Estelle Diard, Julien Bessière, Pierre and Sporns, Olaf 2011. Bayesian Action–Perception Computational Model: Interaction of Production and Recognition of Cursive Letters. PLoS ONE, Vol. 6, Issue. 6, p. e20387.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. and Elqayam, Shira 2011. Towards a descriptivist psychology of reasoning and decision making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, Issue. 5, p. 275.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Elqayam, Shira and Over, David 2012. Probabilities, beliefs, and dual processing: the paradigm shift in the psychology of reasoning. Mind & Society, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 27.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Sobel, David M. and Kirkham, Natasha Z. 2012. Rational Constructivism in Cognitive Development. Vol. 43, Issue. , p. 321.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Goldstone, Robert L. Kersten, Alan and Carvalho, Paulo F. 2012. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Clark, Gordon L. 2012. Mapping Financial Literacy: Cognition and the Environment. SSRN Electronic Journal,
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Matthew and McMurray, Bob 2012. The past, present, and future of computational models of cognitive development. Cognitive Development, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, p. 326.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Phillips, William A. 2012. Self-Organized Complexity and Coherent Infomax from the Viewpoint of Jaynes’s Probability Theory. Information, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 1.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Love, Bradley C. and Jones, Matt 2012. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. p. 415.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Chatham, Christopher H. Yerys, Benjamin E. and Munakata, Yuko 2012. Why won’t you do what I want? The informative failures of children and models. Cognitive Development, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, p. 349.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Yurovsky, Daniel Hidaka, Shohei Wu, Rachel and Lauwereyns, Jan 2012. Quantitative Linking Hypotheses for Infant Eye Movements. PLoS ONE, Vol. 7, Issue. 10, p. e47419.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Perfors, Amy 2012. Bayesian Models of Cognition: What's Built in After All?. Philosophy Compass, Vol. 7, Issue. 2, p. 127.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Botvinick, Matthew 2012. Commentary: Why I Am Not a Dynamicist. Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 78.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Davis, Tyler Love, Bradley C. and Maddox, W. Todd 2012. Age-related declines in the fidelity of newly acquired category representations. Learning & Memory, Vol. 19, Issue. 8, p. 325.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Acerbi, Luigi Wolpert, Daniel M. Vijayakumar, Sethu and Maloney, Laurence T. 2012. Internal Representations of Temporal Statistics and Feedback Calibrate Motor-Sensory Interval Timing. PLoS Computational Biology, Vol. 8, Issue. 11, p. e1002771.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Sarnecka, Barbara W. and Negen, James 2012. Rational Constructivism in Cognitive Development. Vol. 43, Issue. , p. 237.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
de Gardelle, Vincent and Summerfield, Christopher 2012. Reply to van den Berg and Ma: Robust decision makers are not omniscient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, Issue. 13,
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Corner, Adam and Hahn, Ulrike 2013. Normative theories of argumentation: are some norms better than others?. Synthese, Vol. 190, Issue. 16, p. 3579.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Love, Bradley C. 2013. Grounding quantum probability in psychological mechanism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 36, Issue. 3, p. 296.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
Download full list
Google Scholar Citations

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

×
Cambridge University Press

Our Site

  • Accessibility
  • Contact & Help
  • Legal Notices

Quick Links

  • Cambridge Core
  • Cambridge Open Engage
  • Cambridge Aspire website

Our Products

  • Journals
  • Books
  • Elements
  • Textbooks
  • Courseware

Join us online

Please choose a valid location.

  • Rights & Permissions
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Notice
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies Policy
Cambridge University Press 2025

Cancel
Confirm
×

Save article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition
  • Volume 34, Issue 4
  • Matt Jones (a1) and Bradley C. Love (a2)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10003134
Please provide your Kindle email.
Available formats Please select a format to save.
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition
  • Volume 34, Issue 4
  • Matt Jones (a1) and Bradley C. Love (a2)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10003134
Available formats Please select a format to save.
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition
  • Volume 34, Issue 4
  • Matt Jones (a1) and Bradley C. Love (a2)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10003134
Available formats Please select a format to save.
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Contents help
Close Contents help

- No HTML tags allowed
- Web page URLs will display as text only
- Lines and paragraphs break automatically
- Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Please enter your response.

Your details

Email help
Close Email help

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

Please enter a valid email address.
You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? * Conflicting interests help

Close Conflicting interests help

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.