The conjunction fallacy: a misunderstanding about conjunction?

Cognitive Science 28 (3):467-477 (2004)
Abstract
It is easy to construct pairs of sentences X, Y that lead many people to ascribe higher probability to the conjunction X-and-Y than to the conjuncts X, Y. Whether an error is thereby committed depends on reasoners’ interpretation of the expressions “probability” and “and.” We report two experiments designed to clarify the normative status of typical responses to conjunction problems. © 2004 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords Reasoning  Pragmatics  Subjective probability
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,337
External links
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

View all 12 references

Citations of this work BETA
Matthew Weber & Daniel Osherson (2010). Similarity and Induction. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2):245-264.
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

4 ( #245,585 of 1,096,603 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #265,701 of 1,096,603 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.