Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to...
View graph of relations

Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to resolve it with lessons for psychology.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to resolve it with lessons for psychology. / Smith, Leslie.

In: New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 08.2009, p. 228-242.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Smith L. Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to resolve it with lessons for psychology. New Ideas in Psychology. 2009 Aug;27(2):228-242. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.006

Author

Smith, Leslie. / Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to resolve it with lessons for psychology. In: New Ideas in Psychology. 2009 ; Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 228-242.

Bibtex

@article{0b0d236beea6412dac5e6ad08773a1c9,
title = "Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to resolve it with lessons for psychology.",
abstract = "Four assumptions about rule-learning in mathematics continue to be central to psychology—mathematical rules are clear and exact, their applications are well defined, their learning is typically through social experiences, whose mechanisms are causal. All four are contradicted in Wittgenstein's analysis of the rule-following paradox (RFP) one of whose essential features is the normativity of mathematical rules. Although RFP is alive well in 21st century philosophy, it has received scant attention in psychology. My argument is in four parts—a brief review of rule-learning in psychology under the four assumptions; a substantial review of RFP in which they are invalidated; a confirming re-analysis in Piaget's developmental epistemology (DE) with its research-program for an empirically based interpretation of normativity; and four implications for psychology about the limits of causal models, constructivism and rules, rules and networks, novelty as inherent in mental functioning throughout human development.",
keywords = "Rules, Rule-following paradox, Norms, Developmental epistemology",
author = "Leslie Smith",
year = "2009",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.006",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "228--242",
journal = "New Ideas in Psychology",
issn = "0732-118X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wittegenstein's rule-following paradox : how to resolve it with lessons for psychology.

AU - Smith, Leslie

PY - 2009/8

Y1 - 2009/8

N2 - Four assumptions about rule-learning in mathematics continue to be central to psychology—mathematical rules are clear and exact, their applications are well defined, their learning is typically through social experiences, whose mechanisms are causal. All four are contradicted in Wittgenstein's analysis of the rule-following paradox (RFP) one of whose essential features is the normativity of mathematical rules. Although RFP is alive well in 21st century philosophy, it has received scant attention in psychology. My argument is in four parts—a brief review of rule-learning in psychology under the four assumptions; a substantial review of RFP in which they are invalidated; a confirming re-analysis in Piaget's developmental epistemology (DE) with its research-program for an empirically based interpretation of normativity; and four implications for psychology about the limits of causal models, constructivism and rules, rules and networks, novelty as inherent in mental functioning throughout human development.

AB - Four assumptions about rule-learning in mathematics continue to be central to psychology—mathematical rules are clear and exact, their applications are well defined, their learning is typically through social experiences, whose mechanisms are causal. All four are contradicted in Wittgenstein's analysis of the rule-following paradox (RFP) one of whose essential features is the normativity of mathematical rules. Although RFP is alive well in 21st century philosophy, it has received scant attention in psychology. My argument is in four parts—a brief review of rule-learning in psychology under the four assumptions; a substantial review of RFP in which they are invalidated; a confirming re-analysis in Piaget's developmental epistemology (DE) with its research-program for an empirically based interpretation of normativity; and four implications for psychology about the limits of causal models, constructivism and rules, rules and networks, novelty as inherent in mental functioning throughout human development.

KW - Rules

KW - Rule-following paradox

KW - Norms

KW - Developmental epistemology

U2 - 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.006

DO - 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.006

M3 - Journal article

VL - 27

SP - 228

EP - 242

JO - New Ideas in Psychology

JF - New Ideas in Psychology

SN - 0732-118X

IS - 2

ER -