Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459533›Full record

ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024

The Problem-Ladenness of Theory.

Daniel Levenstein, Aniello De Santo, Saskia Heijnen, Manjari Narayan, Freek J W Oude Maatman, Jonathan Rawski, Cory Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What Makes a Good Theory? Interdisciplinary Perspectives.Computational brain & behavior · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel LevensteinMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Monreal, QC Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5507-9145
Aniello De SantoDepartment of Linguistics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT USA.
Saskia HeijnenCognitive Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Manjari NarayanDyno Therapeutics, Watertown, MA USA.
Freek J W Oude MaatmanDepartment of Theoretical Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jonathan RawskiDepartment of Linguistics & Language Development, San Jose State University, San Jose, USA.
Cory WrightDepartment of Philosophy, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cognitive sciences are facing questions of how to select from competing theories or develop those that suit their current needs. However, traditional accounts of theoretical virtues have not yet proven informative to theory development in these fields. We advance a pragmatic account by which theoretical virtues are heuristics we use to estimate a theory's contribution to a field's body of knowledge and the degree to which it increases that knowledge's ability to solve problems in the field's domain or problem space. From this perspective, properties that are traditionally considered epistemic virtues, such as a theory's fit to data or internal coherence, can be couched in terms of problem space coverage, and additional virtues come to light that reflect a theory's alignment with problem-having agents and the context in a societally embedded scientific system. This approach helps us understand why the needs of different fields result in different kinds of theories and allows us to formulate the challenges facing cognitive science in terms that we hope will facilitate their resolution through further theoretical development.

Indexed as

Cognitive sciencePragmatismProblemsScientific theories

Identifiers

PMID42459533
PMCPMC13298621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.