Human performance in default reasoning
| Abstract | There has long been a history of studies investigating how people (“ordinary people”) perform on tasks that involve deductive reasoning. The upshot of these studies is that people characteristically perform some deductive tasks well but others badly. For instance, studies show that people will typically perform MP (“modus ponens”: from ‘If A then B’ and ‘A’, infer ‘B’) and bi-conditional MP (from: ‘A if and only if B’ and ‘A’, infer ‘B’) correctly when invited to make the inference and additionally can discover of their own accord when such inferences are appropriate. On the other hand, the same studies show that people typically perform MT (“modus tollens”: from ‘If A then B’ and ‘not-B’, infer ‘not-A’) and biconditional MT badly. They not only do not recognize when it is appropriate to draw such inferences, but also they will balk at doing them even when they are told that they can make it. Related to these shortcomings seems to be the inability of people to understand that contrapositives are equivalent (that ‘If A then B’ is equivalent to ‘If not-B then not-A’). [Studies of people’s deductive inference-drawing abilities have a long history, involving many studies in the early 20th century concerning Aristotelian syllogisms. But the current spate of studies draws much of its impetus from Wason (Wason, 1968; see also Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). ] The general conclusion seems to be that there are specific areas where “ordinary people” do not perform very logically. This conclusion will not come as a surprise to teachers of elementary logic, who have long thought that the majority of “ordinary people” are inherently illogical and need deep and forceful schooling in order to overcome this flaw. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesSieghard Beller & Hans Spada (2003). The Logic of Content Effects in Propositional Reasoning: The Case of Conditional Reasoning with a Point of View. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (4):335 – 378.
Michael P. Maratsos (2004). People Actually Are About as Bad as Social Psychologists Say, or Worse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):351-352.
Francis Jeffry Pelletier & Renée Elio (2005). The Case for Psychologism in Default and Inheritance Reasoning. Synthese 146 (1-2):7 - 35.
Pascal Wagner-Egger (2007). Conditional Reasoning and the Wason Selection Task: Biconditional Interpretation Instead of Reasoning Bias. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):484 – 505.
Erica Carlisle & Eldar Shafir (2005). Questioning the Cheater-Detection Hypothesis: New Studies with the Selection Task. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (2):97 – 122.
Carlo Cellucci (2006). The Question Hume Didn't Ask: Why Should We Accept Deductive Inferences? In Carlo Cellucci & Paolo Pecere (eds.), Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Reasoning in Mathematics and Natural Science, pp. 137-165. Edizioni dell'Università di Cassino.
James H. Fetzer (1990). Evolution, Rationality and Testability. Synthese 82 (3):423-39.
Beihai Zhou & Yi Mao (2006). A Base Logic for Default Reasoning. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (4):688-709.
Sieghard Beller & Gregory Kuhnm (2007). What Causal Conditional Reasoning Tells Us About People's Understanding of Causality. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):426 – 460.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads14 ( #83,183 of 549,591 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,591 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
