Distinguishing theories of representation

A critique of Anderson's "arguments concerning mental imagery"

Frederick Hayes-Roth

Expert InsightsPublished 1978

In a recent article, Anderson argued that behavioral data could not distinguish alternative theories of memory representations. The theorem Anderson proved does not support his conclusions. Five fallacies in his argument are criticized: (1) behavioral data cannot distinguish alternative models; (2) an invertible function relates corresponding states of alternative representational theories; (3) propositional models can account for data supporting image models and, thus, warrant equal credibility; (4) propositional descriptions constitute parsimonious models; and (5) Unless explicitly operationalized, image models cannot support theoretical or empirical research. Contrary to these beliefs, representational differences can qualitatively affect performance, and such important differences apparently characterize the analog class of imagery models.

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Hayes-Roth, Frederick, Distinguishing theories of representation: A critique of Anderson's "arguments concerning mental imagery". Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1978. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6180.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.