Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:01:53.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contents of the approximate number system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2021

Jack C. Lyons Open the ORCID record for Jack C. Lyons [Opens in a new window]
Jack C. Lyons*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Glasgow, GlasgowG12 8QQ, UK. Jack.Lyons@glasgow.ac.uk; https://sites.google.com/view/jack-lyons/home
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clarke and Beck argue that the approximate number system (ANS) represents rational numbers, like 1/3 or 3.5. I think this claim is not supported by the evidence. Rather, I argue, ANS should be interpreted as representing natural numbers and ratios among them; and we should view the contents of these representations are genuinely approximate.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e195
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. C. (1996). Representations, targets, and attitudes. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2014). The origins of probabilistic inference in human infants. Cognition, 130(3), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrink, K., & Wynn, K. (2007). Ratio abstraction by 6-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18(8), 740–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01969.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Núñez, R. E. (2017). Is there really an evolved capacity for number? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(6), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed