Plausibility and Early Theory in Linguistics and Cognitive Science
Computational Brain & Behavior - Trang 1-13 - 2024
Tóm tắt
Various notions of plausibility are used in cognitive science to argue for or against the “goodness of theories.” However, plausibility remains poorly understood and difficult to analyze. We review debates in the philosophy of science on uses of plausibility in the assessment of novel scientific theories as well as recent attempts to formalize, reform, or eliminate specific notions of plausibility. Although these discussions highlight important concerns behind plausibility claims, they fail to identify viable notions of plausibility that are sufficiently different from other criteria of “good theory,” such as prior probability or external coherence. We survey uses of plausibility in linguistics and cognitive science, confirming that plausibility is often a proxy for other criteria of good theory. We argue that the need remains for concepts of plausibility that can be employed to assess the quality of proposals at the early stages of theory development when other criteria are not yet applicable. We identify two such notions: one relating to formal constraints on theories and another capturing initial epistemic consensus, if not necessarily convergence on the truth, about the target system in a community of inquiry. We briefly assess the specificity and added value of these notions of plausibility relative to other criteria for good theory.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abend, O., Kwiatkowski, T., Smith, N. J., Goldwater, S., & Steedman, M. (2017). Bootstrapping language acquisition. Cognition, 164, 116–143.
Achille, A., Rovere, M., & Soatto, S. (2019). Critical learning periods in deep neural networks. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)
Achinstein, P. (1964). Models, analogies, and theories. Philosophy of Science, 31(4), 328–350.
Agassi, J. (2014). Proof, probability or plausibility. In: Mulligan, K., Kijania-Placek, K., & Placek, T. (eds) The History and Philosophy of Polish Logic, History of Analytic Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 117–127.
Aucher, G., & Schwarzentruber, F. (2013). On the complexity of dynamic epistemic logic. In B. C. Schipper (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Conference of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARKXIV) (pp. 19–28). Chennai, India.
Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2006). Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In Proceedings of LOFT (Vol. 6, pp. 11–24). University of Liverpool.
Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). Probabilistic dynamic belief revision. Synthese, 165, 179–202.
Bartha, P. (2010). By parallel reasoning: the construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford University Press.
Barton, G. E., Berwick, R. C., & Ristad, E. S. (1987). Computational complexity and natural language. MIT press.
Bengio, Y., Simard, P., & Frasconi, P. (1994). Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(2), 157–166.
Bird, A. (2021). Understanding the replication crisis as a base rate fallacy. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(4), 965–993.
Branco, A., Rodrigues, J., Salawa, M., Branco, R., & Saedi, C. (2020). Comparative probing of lexical semantics theories for cognitive plausibility and technological usefulness. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 4004–4019).
Bremnes, H. S., Szymanik, J., & Baggio, G. (2022). Computational complexity explains neural differences in quantifier verification. Cognition, 223, 105013.
Bremnes, H. S., Szymanik, J., & Baggio, G. (2023). The interplay of computational complexity and memory load during quantifier verification. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience on-line first.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton & Co.
Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control, 2(2), 137–167.
Cichy, R. M., & Kaiser, D. (2019). Deep neural networks as scientific models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(4), 305–317.
De Santo, A., & Drury, J. E. (2019). Encoding and verification effects of generalized quantifiers on working memory. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 55(1), 103–114.
De Santo, A., & Rawski, J. (2022). Mathematical linguistics and cognitive complexity. In E. Danesi (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Mathematics (pp. 1–38). Springer.
Dror, I. E., & Gallogly, D. P. (1999). Computational analyses in cognitive neuroscience: In defense of biological implausibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(2), 173–182.
Edelman, S. (1997). Computational theories of object recognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 1(8), 296–304.
Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W.H. Freeman & Co.
Goudge, T. A. (1966). Plausibility of new hypotheses. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(20), 621–624.
Graf, T. (2022). Subregular linguistics: Bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48(3-4), 145–184.
Grossberg, S. (1987). Competitive learning: From interactive activation to adaptive resonance. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 23–63.
Heinz, J., Kobele, G. M., & Riggle, J. (2009). Evaluating the complexity of optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 277–288.
Hooker, C. A. (1996). The scientific realism of Rom Harré. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47(4).
Hopcroft, J. E., Motwani, R., & Ullman, J. D. (2001). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, K. (2015). Notational variants and invariance in linguistics. Mind & Language, 30(2), 162–186.
Keenan, E. L., & Stabler, E. P. (2010). Language variation and linguistic invariants. Lingua, 120(12), 2680–2685.
Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2004). Learning domain structures. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26, 672–677.
Kennedy, W. G. (2009). Cognitive plausibility in cognitive modeling, artificial intelligence, and social simulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM) (pp. 24–26).
Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly, 65(3), 154–170.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.
Love, B. C. (2021). Levels of biological plausibility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1815), 20190632.
Lutz, C. (2006). Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 137–143).
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W.H. Freeman & Co.
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 115–133.
Meehl, P. E. (1992a). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. In R. B. Miller (Ed.), The Restoration of Dialogue: Readings in the Philosophy of Clinical Psychology (pp. 523–555). American Psychological Association.
Meehl, P. E. (1992b). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–339.
Meehl, P. E. (2002). Cliometric metatheory: II. Criteria scientists use in theory appraisal and why it is rational to do so. Psychological Reports, 91(2), 339–404.
Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4).
Merkx, D., & Frank, S. L. (2021). Human sentence processing: Recurrence or attention? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 12–22). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Mewhort, D. J. (1990). Alice in wonderland, or psychology among the information sciences. Psychological Research, 52(2), 158–162.
Michaelis, J. (2001). Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (pp. 228–244).
Michaelis, J. (2004). Observations on strict derivational minimalism. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 53, 192–209.
Michaelov, J. A., Bardolph, M. D., Coulson, S., & Bergen, B. (2021). Different kinds of cognitive plausibility: Why are transformers better than RNNs at predicting N400 amplitude? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, 300–306.
Misak, C. J. (2004). Truth and the end of inquiry: A Peircean account of truth. Oxford University Press.
Nefdt, R. M., & Baggio, G. (2023). Notational variants and cognition: The case of dependency grammar. Erkenntnis, 1–31.
Niiniluoto, I. (1987). Truthlikeness. Springer.
Nyrup, R. (2020). Of water drops and atomic nuclei: Analogies and pursuit worthiness in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(3), 881–903.
Oota, S. R., Alexandre, F., & Hinaut, X. (2022). Long-term plausibility of language models and neural dynamics during narrative listening. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44, 2462–2469.
Pentus, M. (2006). Lambek calculus is NP-complete. Theoretical Computer Science, 357(1-3), 186–201.
Perconti, P. (2017). The case for cognitive plausibility. In: La Mantia, F., Licata, I., & Perconti, P. (eds) Language in Complexity. Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham, pp. 73–79.
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Xu, F. (2011). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120(3), 302–321.
Phillips, L., & Pearl, L. (2015). The utility of cognitive plausibility in language acquisition modeling: Evidence from word segmentation. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1824–1854.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1976). A note on verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27(2), 147–159.
Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. Routledge.
Ramakrishnan, K., Scholte, S., Lamme, V., Smeulders, A., & Ghebreab, S. (2015). Convolutional neural networks in the brain: An fMRI study. Journal of Vision, 15(12), 371–371.
Richards, B. A., Lillicrap, T. P., Beaudoin, P., et al. (2019). A deep learning framework for neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 22(11), 1761–1770.
Ristad, E. S. (1993). The language complexity game. MIT Press.
Rogers, J., & Pullum, G. K. (2011). Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20(3), 329–342.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1989). The architecture of mind: A connectionist approach. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science (pp. 133–159). MIT Press.
Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 883–893.
Savitch, W. J. (1993). Why it might pay to assume that languages are infinite. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 8(1-2), 17–25.
Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2013). Kuhn and the question of pursuit worthiness. Topoi, 32, 9–19.
Shapere, D. (1966). Plausibility and justification in the development of science. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(20), 611–621.
Shaw, J. (2022). On the very idea of pursuitworthiness. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 103–112.
Simon, H. A. (1968). On judging the plausibility of theories. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 52, 439–459.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1–20.
Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2010). The logical response to a noisy world. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Cognition and Conditionals: Probability and Logic in Human Thinking (pp. 85–102). Oxford University Press.
Stinson, C. (2020). From implausible artificial neurons to idealized cognitive models: Rebooting philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosophy of Science, 87(4), 590–611.
Suppes, P. (2002). Representation and invariance of scientific structures. CSLI Publications.
Szymanik, J., & Verbrugge, R. (2018). Tractability and the computational mind. In M. Sprevak & M. Colombo (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Computational Mind. Routledge.
Toulmin, S. (1966). The plausibility of theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(20), 624–627.
Trout, J. D. (2002). Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), 212–233.
Tsotsos, J. K. (1993). The role of computational complexity in perceptual theory. Advances in psychology, 99, 261–296.
van De Pol, I., Van Rooij, I., & Szymanik, J. (2018). Parameterized complexity of theory of mind reasoning in dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 27, 255–294.
van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939–984.
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020). Theory development requires an epistemological sea change. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 321–325.
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697.
van Rooij, I., Blokpoel, M., Kwisthout, J., & Wareham, T. (2019). Cognition and intractability: A guide to classical and parameterized complexity analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2014). Dynamic epistemic logic for implicit and explicit beliefs. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23, 107–140.
Wareham, H. T. (1996). The role of parameterized computational complexity theory in cognitive modeling. In AAAI-96 Workshop Working Notes: Computational Cognitive Modeling: Source of the Power.
Wareham, T. (1999). Systematic parameterized complexity analysis in computational phonology. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, April 1999. Technical Report ROA-318-0599, Rutgers Optimality Archive.
Yang, G. R., & Wang, X. J. (2020). Artificial neural networks for neuroscientists: A primer. Neuron, 107(6), 1048–1070.
Zollman, K. J. S. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 74(5), 574–587.
Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35.
Zollman, K. J. S. (2013). Network epistemology: Communication in epistemic communities. Philosophy Compass, 8(1), 15–27.