False categories in cognition: the Not-the-Liver fallacy.
This paper reports on an increasingly frequent error committed in cognition research that at best slows progress, and at worse leads to self-perpetuating false claims and misguided research. The error involves how we identify meaningful processes and categories on the basis of data. Examples are given from three areas of cognition: (1) memory, where the misconception has fueled the popular implicit/explicit categories, (2) perception, where the misconception is used to re-evaluate the classic what/where division, and (3) motor skills, where it is used to draw conclusions from patients with Huntington's disease. Reasons for the prevalence of this error, how it relates to double dissociations, and what it suggests about scientific reasoning are offered.
Bedford
F L
FL
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson 85721, USA. bedford@u.arizona.edu
D003071:Cognition / Q000145:classification*; D019336:Cognitive Science / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008128:Logic; D008568:Memory / Q000145:classification*; D009048:Motor Skills / Q000145:classification*; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000145:classification*