|Abstract||In the psychological literature on reasoning it has always been assumed that if there is such a thing as mental logic, it must be a set of inference rules. This proof-theoretic conception of mental logic is compatible with but doesn’t do justice to what, according to most logicians, logic is about. Thus, the ongoing debate over mental logic is based on a too narrow notion of logic. Adopting the broader perspective suggested by the standard (Tarskian) view on logic helps to clarify the debate and also shows that the case for mental logic is much stronger than its critics would have us believe.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Ken Akiba (1996). Logic as Instrument: The Millian View on the Role of Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 17 (1-2):73-83.
Michael L. Anderson, John Grant & Don Perlis, On the Reasoning of Real-World Agents: Toward a Semantics for Active Logic.
Niki Pfeifer & G. D. Kleiter (2005). Towards a Mental Probability Logic. Psychologica Belgica 45 (1):71--99.
Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
Jim Mackenzie (1989). Reasoning and Logic. Synthese 79 (1):99 - 117.
William Stanley Jevons (1890/1971). Pure Logic, and Other Minor Works. New York,B. Franklin.
Daniel Kayser (forthcoming). The Place of Logic in Reasoning. Logica Universalis.
Niki Pfeifer (2006). On Mental Probability Logic. Dissertation, Department of Psychology
Timm Triplett (1988). Azande Logic Versus Western Logic? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (3):361-366.
Pascal Engel (2006). Logic, Reasoning and the Logical Constants. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):219-235.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #87,849 of 549,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,298 of 549,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?