On the ‘cognitive map debate’ in insect navigation

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.08.004
Rüdiger Wehner , Thierry Hoinville , Holk Cruse
{"title":"On the ‘cognitive map debate’ in insect navigation","authors":"Rüdiger Wehner ,&nbsp;Thierry Hoinville ,&nbsp;Holk Cruse","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.08.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In a historical account recently published in this journal Dhein argues that the current debate whether insects like bees and ants use cognitive maps (centralized map hypothesis) or other means of navigation (decentralized network hypothesis) largely reflects the classical debate between American experimental psychologists à la Tolman and German ethologists à la Lorenz, respectively. In this dichotomy we, i.e., the proponents of the network hypothesis, are inappropriately placed on the Lorenzian line. In particular, we argue that in contrast to Dhein's claim our concepts are not based on merely instinctive or peripheral modes of information processing. In general, on the one side our approaches have largely been motivated by the early biocybernetics way of thinking. On the other side they are deeply rooted in studies on the insect's behavioral ecology, i.e., in the ecological setting within which the navigational strategies have evolved and within which the animal now operates. Following such a bottom-up approach we are not “anti-cognitive map researchers” but argue that the results we have obtained in ants, and also the results of some decisive experiments in bees, can be explained and simulated without the need of invoking metric maps.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812300105X/pdfft?md5=e6d84677eeb280c76106862223abc2b9&pid=1-s2.0-S003936812300105X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812300105X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a historical account recently published in this journal Dhein argues that the current debate whether insects like bees and ants use cognitive maps (centralized map hypothesis) or other means of navigation (decentralized network hypothesis) largely reflects the classical debate between American experimental psychologists à la Tolman and German ethologists à la Lorenz, respectively. In this dichotomy we, i.e., the proponents of the network hypothesis, are inappropriately placed on the Lorenzian line. In particular, we argue that in contrast to Dhein's claim our concepts are not based on merely instinctive or peripheral modes of information processing. In general, on the one side our approaches have largely been motivated by the early biocybernetics way of thinking. On the other side they are deeply rooted in studies on the insect's behavioral ecology, i.e., in the ecological setting within which the navigational strategies have evolved and within which the animal now operates. Following such a bottom-up approach we are not “anti-cognitive map researchers” but argue that the results we have obtained in ants, and also the results of some decisive experiments in bees, can be explained and simulated without the need of invoking metric maps.

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
关于昆虫导航中的“认知地图之争”。
在最近发表在本杂志上的一篇历史报道中,Dhein认为,目前关于蜜蜂和蚂蚁等昆虫是否使用认知地图(集中式地图假说)或其他导航方式(去中心化网络假说)的争论在很大程度上反映了美国实验心理学家àla Tolman和德国行为学家àla Lorenz之间的经典争论。在这种二分法中,我们,即网络假说的支持者,被不恰当地放在洛伦兹线上。特别是,我们认为,与Dhein的说法相反,我们的概念不仅仅基于本能或外围的信息处理模式。总的来说,一方面,我们的方法在很大程度上受到了早期生物认知思维方式的推动。另一方面,它们深深植根于对昆虫行为生态学的研究,即在导航策略进化的生态环境中,动物现在在其中运作。遵循这种自下而上的方法,我们不是“反认知地图研究者”,而是认为,我们在蚂蚁身上获得的结果,以及在蜜蜂身上进行的一些决定性实验的结果,可以在不需要调用度量图的情况下进行解释和模拟。
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
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
The philosophical coming of age of science. Euler’s role in Cassirer’s early philosophy of space and time Freud, bullshit, and pseudoscience Kant on the logical form of organized being Gauge invariance through gauge fixing Mathematics and society reunited: The social aspects of Brouwer's intuitionism
×
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