David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):349 – 374 (2000)
An important debate in the reasoning literature concerns the extent to which inference processes are domain-free or domain-specific. Typically, evidence in support of the domain-specific position comprises the facilitation observed when abstract reasoning tasks are set in realistic context. Three experiments are reported here in which the sources of facilitation were investigated for contextualised versions of Raven's Progressive Matrices (Richardson, 1991) and non-verbal analogies from the AH4 test (Richardson & Webster, 1996). Experiment 1 confirmed that the facilitation observed for the contextualised matrices was in part due to extraneous aspects of commentaries originally intended to activate domainspecific processes. Experiments 2 and 3 indicated that the remainder of the facilitation for the matrices, and all of the facilitation for the analogies, could be explained by visual salience: Converting the item elements into realistic objects had enabled them and their transitions to be identified more easily. Hence, performance at simplified abstract items was as good as, or better than, at contextualised items. It is concluded that facilitation effects cannot be interpreted as showing that domain-specific processes constitute a self-contained system separate from domain-free processes. In turn, this means that domain-free processes cannot be dismissed as being unimportant for reasoning.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jonathan St B. T. Evans & David E. Over (2002). The Role of Language in the Dual Process Theory of Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):684-685.
John A. Barnden (2001). Uncertain Reasoning About Agents' Beliefs and Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (2-3):115-152.
Stephanie Denison & Fei Xu (2010). Integrating Physical Constraints in Statistical Inference by 11-Month-Old Infants. Cognitive Science 34 (5):885-908.
Pam Marek, Richard A. Griggs & Cynthia S. Koenig (2000). Reducing Cognitive Complexity in a Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning Task. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (3):253 – 265.
Sieghard Beller (2008). Deontic Norms, Deontic Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):305 – 341.
Cynthia Koenig & Richard Griggs (2004). Facilitation and Analogical Transfer in the THOG Task. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (4):355 – 370.
James H. Fetzer (1990). Evolution, Rationality and Testability. Synthese 82 (3):423-39.
Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer (2011). Deductive and Inductive Conditional Inferences: Two Modes of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 17 (3):247 - 281.
Daniel Rasmussen & Chris Eliasmith (2011). A Neural Model of Rule Generation in Inductive Reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (1):140-153.
Richard A. Griggs Richard, D. Platt Stephen, E. Newstead Sherri & L. Jackson (1998). Attentional Factors in a Disjunctive Reasoning Task. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (1):1 – 14.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #162,855 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?