- 232 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Reasoning

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reasoning

Lindsay Anderson

“The probabilistic approach to human reasoning”- Oaksford, M., & Chater, N.

“Two kinds of Reasoning” – Rips, L. J.

“Deductive Reasoning” – Johnson-Laird, P. N.

- A systematic process of thought that yields a conclusion from percepts, thoughts, or assertions
- Reminder:
Deduction: general -> specific

Induction: specific -> general

PARADOX

People have successful reasoning in everyday life, but they perform poorly on laboratory reasoning tasks

WHY ?!?!?

- Mental logic & Mental Model approaches:
- argue that systematic deviations from logic represent unavoidable performance errors

- working memory limitations restrict reasoning ability

According to both: people rational in principle but err in practice

______________________________________________

To resolve conflict, Other theorists propose that there are 2 types of rationality:

- Everyday rationality- does not depend on formal system like logic
- Formal rationality- is error prone
Still, how is everyday success explained?

Allow “strengthening of antecedent”

-“if something is a bird it flys”

-If tweety is a bird, then can infer that tweety flies

-Strengthening antecedent means that when given further info, like “tweety is an ostrich” you still infer that “tweey flies”

-Do this in standard logic because ostrich still a bird

-This new info about ostrich should defeat the previous conclusion that tweety flies

- Probabilistic handles this problem by using conditional probability:
-If tweety a bird, then probability of flying is high

-If tweety an ostrich, probability of flying is 0

- Errors on lab tasks because importing everyday, uncertain, reasoning strategies into laboratory
- This seemingly “irrational behavior” is a result of the behavior being compared to an inappropriate logical standard
- When compare behavior to probability theory instead of logic, reasoning seen more positively

- Conditional Inference
- Wason’s selection task
- Syllogistic Reasoning
Applying probability approach to these areas explains ppl’s lab performance as rational attempt to make sense of the lab tasks by using strategies adapted for coping with everyday uncertainty

- View 1: People can evaluate arguments in at least 2 qualitatively different ways:
- In terms of deductive correctness

- In terms of inductive strength

- View 2: Single Psychological continuum; argument strength and correctness are functions of arguments position on this continuum
- Deductively correct- max value on continuum

- Strong argument- high value on continuum

Implies only assess argument in terms of strength

But, maybe other ways people assess arguments (e.g., plausibility)?

- If the Unitary View correct, then argument evaluation one dimensional
- If Unitary does not hold true, then must accept that there are other ways people assess goodness of arguments

Participantsevaluated arguments in terms of correctness and strength

DeductionCondition: valid/not valid, then rated condifence

InductionCondition: strong/not strong, then rated degree of strength

Varied, wording of instructions to check whether results depended on wording (no effect)

For unitary to be correct, increases in deductive correctness should mimic increases in inductive strength (b/c reflecting differences on same underlying one-dimensional scale)

As can see, this is not happening

- People not using probability as the SOLE basis for both judgments
- Reasoning is not one-dimensional

3 Principle Approaches to Deductive Performance:

1. Deduction as process based on Factual Knowledge

* 2. Deduction as formal, syntactic process

* 3. Deduction as semantic process based on mental models

Deduction controversial: may rely on 1 of the above, or some combination

- Reasoning has nothing to do with logic
- Instead, reasoning based on memories of previous inferences
- Come to conclusions based on our current factual knowledge base
Problem: This theory does not explain why we can reason about the unknown

- Deduction relies on formal rules of inference
Rip’s Theory (& others)- proposes reasoners extract logical forms of premises and use rules to derive conclusions

- Rules for sentential connectives like “if” and “or” and for quantifiers like “all” and “some”

- Based on natural deduction, so have rules for introducing and eliminating sentential connectives

With rules, complications arise:

Ex: introducing “And”

A

B

Therefore A and B

Therefore A and (A and B)

Therefore A and [A and (A and B)]

As you can see, this gets very messy

- Mental models are not based on arrangement of words (syntax), rather they are based on meaning
- Each mental model represents a possibility
- its structure and content capture what is common about all the ways the possibility can occur

- “there are a circle and a triangle”
- Model captures whats common in any situation where circle and triangle exist
- Given that premise is true, a conclusion is possible if in at least 1 mental model
- If in all mental models, conclusion necessary

- Reasoning with sentential connectives
- Conditional reasoning
- Reasoning about Relations
- Syllogisms and reasoning with quantifiers
- The effects of content on deduction
- The Selection Task
- Systematic Fallacies in Reasoning
(in the context of these phenomena, author discusses evidence for/against 3 main theories so you can arrive at your own conclusion)