David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Richard E. Nisbett (ed.)
L. Erlbaum Associates (1993)
This book examines two questions: Do people make use of abstract rules such as logical and statistical rules when making inferences in everyday life? Can such abstract rules be changed by training? Contrary to the spirit of reductionist theories from behaviorism to connectionism, there is ample evidence that people do make use of abstract rules of inference -- including rules of logic, statistics, causal deduction, and cost-benefit analysis. Such rules, moreover, are easily alterable by instruction as it occurs in classrooms and in brief laboratory training sessions. The fact that purely formal training can alter them and that those taught in one content domain can "escape" to a quite different domain for which they are also highly applicable shows that the rules are highly abstract. The major implication for cognitive science is that people are capable of operating with abstract rules even for concrete, mundane tasks; therefore, any realistic model of human inferential capacity must reflect this fact. The major implication for education is that people can be far more broadly influenced by training than is generally supposed. At high levels of formality and abstraction, relatively brief training can alter the nature of problem-solving for an infinite number of content domains.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$14.34 used (82% off) $31.58 new (60% off) $54.75 direct from Amazon (31% off) Amazon page|
|Call number||BC177.R76 1993|
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
Michael Bishop & Benett Bootz (2007). Goodbye, Justification. Hello World. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):269-285.
John Cantwell (2007). Reasoning With Safety Factor Rules. Techne 11 (1):55-70.
Gary Marcus (2005). Opposites Detract: Why Rules and Similarity Should Not Be Viewed as Opposite Ends of a Continuum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-29.
Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Pascal Wagner-Egger (2007). Conditional Reasoning and the Wason Selection Task: Biconditional Interpretation Instead of Reasoning Bias. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):484 – 505.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #88,585 of 1,101,181 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #59,061 of 1,101,181 )
How can I increase my downloads?