David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):326 – 348 (2005)
Relatively little is known about those who consistently produce the valid response to Modus Tollens (MT) problems. In two studies, people who responded correctly to MT problems indicated how “convinced” they were by proofs of conditional reasoning conclusions. The first experiment showed that MT competent reasoners found accurate proofs of MT reasoning more convincing than similar “proofs” of invalid reasoning. Similarly, there was a tendency for MT competent reasoners to find an initial counterfactual supposition more convincing than did people who were less competent in MT. The second experiment showed that when individuals produced the correct MT response, and found correct MT proofs to be more convincing than “bogus” proofs, they were also less likely to find the conclusions to Denying the Antecedent, or Affirming the Consequent problems valid, compared to individuals who could not discriminate between valid and bogus MT proofs. These findings are discussed in terms of both their implications for the mental logic and mental models positions, and individual differences in System 1 and System 2 reasoning.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Alison Bacon, Simon Handley & Stephen Newstead (2003). Individual Differences in Strategies for Syllogistic Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (2):133 – 168.
Kenny Easwaran (2009). Probabilistic Proofs and Transferability. Philosophia Mathematica 17 (3):341-362.
Henry Markovits (2000). A Mental Model Analysis of Young Children's Conditional Reasoning with Meaningful Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):335 – 347.
Carlos Santamaria Juan A. Garcia-Madruga Philip & N. Johnson-Laird (1998). Reasoning From Double Conditionals: The Effects of Logical Structure and Believability. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (2):97 – 122.
Sieghard Beller & Gregory Kuhnm (2007). What Causal Conditional Reasoning Tells Us About People's Understanding of Causality. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):426 – 460.
Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schaeken, Walter Schroyens & Gery D'Ydewalle (2000). Strategies During Complex Conditional Inferences. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (2):125 – 160.
David Sherry (2009). The Role of Diagrams in Mathematical Arguments. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):59-74.
John B. Best (2001). Conditional Reasoning Processes in a Logical Deduction Game. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (3):235 – 254.
Jessica Carter (2010). Diagrams and Proofs in Analysis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):1 – 14.
Simon J. Handley & Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2000). Supposition and Representation in Human Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):273 – 311.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #224,380 of 1,098,976 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #175,054 of 1,098,976 )
How can I increase my downloads?