From falsification to generating an alternative hypothesis: Exploring the role of the new-perspective hypothesis in successful 2-4-6 task performance [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 17 (2):105 - 136 (2011)
Previous research has found no consistent relationship between measures of disconfirmatory evidence, alternative hypotheses, and people's success in rule-discovery tasks. The present paper explores falsification's inductive benefit under the ?context of discovery? in Wason's 2?4?6 task by developing a new type of alternative hypothesis, which we label the ?new-perspective hypothesis?. Experiment 1 found that falsification is effective only when a new-perspective hypothesis is generated, rather than a same-perspective hypothesis. The total number of alternative hypotheses was also unrelated to rule-discovery success. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 but included the addition of a different name-content task as well as two levels of task difficulty. The main findings were similar to those for Experiment 1, and the new-perspective hypothesis was observed to be most important for the difficult rule-discovery task. These results help to clarify the important ways new-perspective hypotheses and disconfirmatory evidence contribute to successful rule-discovery performance
|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
Barbara A. Spellman (1999). Hypothesis Testing: Strategy Selection for Generalising Versus Limiting Hypotheses. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):67 – 92.
Christine Hoffmann & Helmut Crott (2004). Effects of Amount of Evidence and Range of Rule on the Use of Hypothesis and Target Tests by Groups in Rule-Discovery Tasks. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (4):321 – 354.
Erica Carlisle & Eldar Shafir (2005). Questioning the Cheater-Detection Hypothesis: New Studies with the Selection Task. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (2):97 – 122.
Maggie Gale & Linden J. Ball (2009). Exploring the Determinants of Dual Goal Facilitation in a Rule Discovery Task. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (3):294 – 315.
Linden J. Ball & Maggie Gale (2011). Exploring the Determinants of Dual Goal Facilitation in a Rule Discovery Task. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (3):294-315.
Aldo Zanga & Jean-Fran (2004). Implicit Learning in Rule Induction and Problem Solving. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (1):55 – 83.
Keith Davids & Simon Bennett (1998). The Dynamical Hypothesis: The Role of Biological Constraints on Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):636-636.
Aviezer Tucker (2003). The Epistemic Significance of Consensus. Inquiry 46 (4):501 – 521.
James Hawthorne (2011). Confirmation Theory. In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm Forster (eds.), Philosophy of Statistics, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 7. Elsevier
James Blachowicz (1987). Discovery as Correction. Synthese 71 (3):235 - 321.
D. Evans (2002). The Search Hypothesis of Emotions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):497-509.
Marcus Selart, Ole Boe & Tommy Garling (1999). Reasoning About Outcome Probabilities and Values in Preference Reversals. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (2):175 – 188.
Robert Barrett (1969). On the Conclusive Falsification of Scientific Hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 36 (4):363-374.
Added to index2011-03-16
Total downloads21 ( #134,799 of 1,725,157 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #210,933 of 1,725,157 )
How can I increase my downloads?