Correction to "Levels of analysis and explanatory progress in psychology: Integrating frameworks from biology and cognitive science for a more comprehensive science of the mind" by Al-Shawaf (2024).

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1037/rev0000482
{"title":"Correction to \"Levels of analysis and explanatory progress in psychology: Integrating frameworks from biology and cognitive science for a more comprehensive science of the mind\" by Al-Shawaf (2024).","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/rev0000482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reports an error in \"Levels of analysis and explanatory progress in psychology: Integrating frameworks from biology and cognitive science for a more comprehensive science of the mind\" by Laith Al-Shawaf (<i>Psychological Review</i>, Advanced Online Publication, Jan 22, 2024, np). Incorrect italic formatting was removed throughout the article, and an unnecessary paragraph of text was removed from the \"Levels of Analysis and the Branches of Psychology: What Is Needed for a Complete Explanation of a Behavior or Cognitive System?\" section. These were editorial production errors. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2024-45670-001.) Levels of analysis are crucial to the progress of science. They frame the epistemological boundaries of a discipline, chart its explanatory goals, help scientists to avoid needless conflict, and highlight knowledge gaps. Two frameworks in particular, <i>Tinbergen's four questions</i> from biology and <i>Marr's three levels</i> from cognitive science, hold immense potential for psychology. This article proposes ways to integrate the two frameworks and suggests that doing so helps resolve key confusions and unnecessary conflicts in psychology. Integrating these two frameworks clarifies what \"mechanism\" really means, sheds light on how to test evolutionary hypotheses in psychology, and specifies what is required for a comprehensive explanation of a behavior or cognitive system. Adopting and integrating these two theoretical frameworks has the capacity to spur progress in psychology and to clarify what is needed for a comprehensive science of the mind. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000482","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reports an error in "Levels of analysis and explanatory progress in psychology: Integrating frameworks from biology and cognitive science for a more comprehensive science of the mind" by Laith Al-Shawaf (Psychological Review, Advanced Online Publication, Jan 22, 2024, np). Incorrect italic formatting was removed throughout the article, and an unnecessary paragraph of text was removed from the "Levels of Analysis and the Branches of Psychology: What Is Needed for a Complete Explanation of a Behavior or Cognitive System?" section. These were editorial production errors. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2024-45670-001.) Levels of analysis are crucial to the progress of science. They frame the epistemological boundaries of a discipline, chart its explanatory goals, help scientists to avoid needless conflict, and highlight knowledge gaps. Two frameworks in particular, Tinbergen's four questions from biology and Marr's three levels from cognitive science, hold immense potential for psychology. This article proposes ways to integrate the two frameworks and suggests that doing so helps resolve key confusions and unnecessary conflicts in psychology. Integrating these two frameworks clarifies what "mechanism" really means, sheds light on how to test evolutionary hypotheses in psychology, and specifies what is required for a comprehensive explanation of a behavior or cognitive system. Adopting and integrating these two theoretical frameworks has the capacity to spur progress in psychology and to clarify what is needed for a comprehensive science of the mind. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
更正 "心理学的分析层次和解释进展:整合生物学和认知科学的框架,建立更全面的心理科学",作者 Al-Shawaf (2024)。
报告 "心理学中的分析层次和解释进展:Laith Al-Shawaf 撰写的 "整合生物学和认知科学框架,建立更全面的心理科学"(《心理学评论》,高级在线出版,2024 年 1 月 22 日,np)中的错误。删除了整篇文章中不正确的斜体格式,并删除了 "分析层次和心理学分支 "中不必要的一段文字:行为或认知系统的完整解释需要什么?这些都是编辑制作上的错误。本文所有版本均已更正。(原文摘要如下,载于 2024-45670-001 号记录)。分析层次对科学进步至关重要。它们框定了一门学科的认识论边界,勾勒出其解释性目标,帮助科学家避免不必要的冲突,并突出知识差距。尤其是两个框架,即生物学中廷伯根的四个问题和认知科学中马尔的三个层次,为心理学带来了巨大的潜力。本文提出了整合这两个框架的方法,并认为这样做有助于解决心理学中的主要困惑和不必要的冲突。整合这两个框架可以澄清 "机制 "的真正含义,阐明如何检验心理学中的进化假设,并明确全面解释行为或认知系统所需的条件。采用和整合这两个理论框架能够推动心理学的进步,并明确全面的心理科学需要什么。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
From interoception to control over the internal body: The ideomotor hypothesis of voluntary interoaction. Human visual clustering of point arrays. Illusory traits: Wrong but sometimes useful. A spiking neural model of decision making and the speed-accuracy trade-off. Dynamics of covert signaling: Modeling the emergence and extinction of identity signals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1