David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 10 (3):289 – 320 (2004)
Three experiments were used to investigate individuals' hypothesis-testing process as a function of moral perceived utilities , which in turn depend on perceived responsibility and fear of guilt. Moral perceived utilities are related to individuals' moral standards and specifically to people's attempt to face up to their own responsibilities, and to avoid feeling guilty of irresponsibility. The results showed that responsibility and fear of guilt in testing hypotheses involved a process defined as prudential mode , which entails focusing on and confirming the worst hypothesis , and then reiterating the testing process. In particular, the results showed that responsible and guilt-fearing individuals: (1) tended to search prudentially for examples confirming the worst hypothesis and to search for counter-examples falsifying the positive hypothesis; (2) focused on the worst alternative, and tended to confirm it; (3) prudentially kept up the testing process, even if faced with initial positive evidence. Our discussion of the results emphasises how people are largely pragmatic in their hypothesis testing, using efficient cognitive strategies that focus on error minimisation rather than on truth detection. In a context of responsibility and guilt, the errors are linked to people's failure to face up to their own responsibilities, and are thus moral errors.
|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
G. William Moore, Grover M. Hutchins & Robert E. Miller (1986). A New Paradigm for Hypothesis Testing in Medicine, with Examination of the Neyman Pearson Condition. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3).
Bruno D. Zumbo (1998). A Viable Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):227-228.
A. J. E. De Veer & J. M. A. M. Janssens (1994). Victim‐Orientated Discipline, Interpersonal Understanding and Guilt. Journal of Moral Education 23 (2):165-182.
Robert W. Frick (1998). Chow's Defense of Null-Hypothesis Testing: Too Traditional? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):199-199.
Rob Hengeveld (2002). Methodology Going Astray in Population Biology. Acta Biotheoretica 50 (2).
Henderikus J. Stam & Grant A. Pasay (1998). The Historical Case Against Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):219-220.
Fabrice Teroni & Otto Bruun (2011). Shame, Guilt and Morality. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2):223-245.
David J. Pittenger (2001). Hypothesis Testing as a Moral Choice. Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):151 – 162.
Joseph L. Austerweil & Thomas L. Griffiths (2011). Seeking Confirmation Is Rational for Deterministic Hypotheses. Cognitive Science 35 (3):499-526.
Darrell P. Rowbottom & R. McNeill Alexander (2012). The Role of Hypotheses in Biomechanical Research. Science in Context 25 (2):247-262.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #229,636 of 1,102,758 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,758 )
How can I increase my downloads?