{"title":"关于昆虫导航中的“认知地图之争”。","authors":"Rüdiger Wehner , Thierry Hoinville , 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":"{\"title\":\"On the ‘cognitive map debate’ in insect navigation\",\"authors\":\"Rüdiger Wehner , Thierry Hoinville , 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}","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}
On the ‘cognitive map debate’ in insect navigation
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.
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.