Structure-mapping vs. High-level perception: The mistaken fight over the explanation of analogy (original) (raw)
Related papers
How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity
Memory & Cognition, 2000
Laboratory studies of analogical reasoning have shown that subjects are mostly influenced by superficial similarity in the retrieval of source analogs. However, real-world investigations have demonstrated that people generate analogies based on deep structural features. We conducted three studies to determine why laboratory and real-world studies have yielded different results. In the first two studies, we used a "production paradigm" in which subjects were asked to generate sources for a given target. Results show the majority of analogies generated displayed low levels of superficial similarity with the target problem. Moreover, most analogies were based on complex underlying structures. The third study used a "reception paradigm" methodology. Participants had to retrieve predetermined sources instead of generating their own. In this case, retrieval was largely constrained by surface similarity. We conclude that people can use structural relations when given an appropriate task and that previous research on analogy has underestimated this ability.
The central role of analogy in cognitive science
Methode - Analytic Perspectives, 2013
Emmanuel Sander is Professor of Psychology at University of Paris-VIII and in charge of the research group "Compréhension, raisonnement et acquisition des connaissances". He is author, with Douglas Hofstadter, of the new book Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking (2013). The aim of this interview is to discuss the role of analogy and analogy-making in contemporary research in cognitive science, and to show at the same time the future perspectives for this topic in psychology and philosophy research framework. The interview is about the analogy as a cognitive capability, its relationship with logic and semantics, and with the key subjects of categorization and concepts, without ignoring some remarks about the connection with, and the contributions of, neuroscience as regards this particular research trend.
Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models
Cognitive Science, 1994
Three theories of analogy have been proposed which are supported by computational models and data from experiments on human analogical abilities. In this paper, we show how these theories can be unified within a common metatheoretical framework which distinguishes between levels of informational, behavioural and hardware constraints. This framework makes clear the distinctions between three computational models in the literature (the Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine, the Structure-Mapping Engine and the Incremental Analogy Machine) . The paper then goes on to develop a methodology for the comparative testing of these models. In two different manipulations of an analogical-mapping task we compare the results of computational experiments with these models against the results of psychological experiments. In the first experiment, we show that increasing the number of similar elements in two analogical domains, decreases the response time taken to reach the correct mapping
Neural network models have been criticized for their inability to make use of compositional representations. In this paper, we describe a series of psychological phenomena that demonstrate the role of structured representations in cognition. These findings suggest that people compare relational representations via a process of structural alignment. This process will have to be captured by any model of cognition, symbolic or subsymbolic.
Varieties of Analogical Reasoning
Motivation -The purpose of this article is to reinvigorate debate concerning the nature of analogy and broaden the scope of current conceptions of analogy. Research approach -An analysis of the history of the concept of analogy, case studies on the use of analogy in problemsolving, cognitive research on analogy comprehension, and a naturalistic inquiry into the various functions of analogy. Findings and Implications -Psychological theories and computational models have generally relied on: (a) A single set of ontological concepts (a property called "similarity" and a structuralist categorization of types of semantic relations) (b) A single form category (i.e., the classic four-term analogy), and (c) A single set of morphological distinctions (e.g., verbal versus pictorial analogies). The taxonomy presented here distinguishes functional kinds of analogy, each of which presents an opportunity for research on aspects of reasoning that have been largely unrecognized. Originality/Value -The various functional kinds of analogy will each require their own treatment in macrocognitive theories and computational models. Take away message -The naturalistic investigation of the functions of analogy suggests that analogy is a macrocognitive phenomenon derivative of number of supporting processes, including the apperception of resemblances and distinctions, metaphor, and the balancing of semantic flexibility and inference constraint.
What cognitive capabilities underlie our fundamental human achievements? Although a complete answer remains elusive, one basic component is a special kind of symbolic ability-the ability to pick out patterns, to identify recurrences of these patterns despite variation in the elements that compose them, to form concepts that abstract and reify these patterns, and to express these concepts in language. Analogy, in its most general sense, is this ability to think about relational patterns. As Douglas Hofstadter (chap.
2013
Analogy is a kind of similarity in which the same system of relations holds across different objects. Analogies thus capture parallels across different situations. When such a common structure is found, then what is known about one situation can be used to infer new information about the other. This chapter describes the processes involved in analogical reasoning, reviews foundational research and recent developments in the field, and proposes new avenues of investigation. analogy, mapping, inference, reasoning, relational structure, structural alignment, relational similarity, structure mapping, metaphor Analogical ability—the ability to perceive like relational structure across different contexts—is a core mechanism of human cognition. The ability to perceive and use purely relational similarity is a major contributor—arguably the major contributor—to our species ’ remarkable mental powers (Gentner,
A Naturalistic Exploration of Forms and Functions of Analogizing
Metaphor and Symbol, 2009
The purpose of this article is to invigorate debate concerning the nature of analogy, and to broaden the scope of current conceptions of analogy. We argue that analogizing is not a single or even a fundamental cognitive process. The argument relies on an analysis of the history of the concept of analogy, case studies on the use of analogy in scientific problem solving, cognitive research on analogy comprehension and problem solving, and a survey of computational mechanisms of analogy comprehension. Analogizing is regarded as a macrocognitive phenomenon having a number of supporting processes. These include the apperception of resemblances and distinctions, metaphor, and the balancing of semantic flexibility and inference constraint. Psychological theories and computational models have generally relied on (a) a sparse set of ontological concepts (a property called "similarity" and a structuralist categorization of types of semantic relations), (b) a single form category (i.e., the classic four-term analogy), and (c) a single set of morphological distinctions (e.g., verbal vs. pictorial analogies). This article presents a classification based on a "naturalistic" exploration of the variety of uses of analogical reasoning in pragmatically distinct contexts. The resultant taxonomy distinguishes pre-hoc, ad-hoc, post-hoc, pro-hoc, contra-hoc, and trans-hoc analogy. Each will require its own macrocognitive modeling, and each presents an opportunity for research on phenomena of reasoning that have been neglected.