David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 3 (2):81 – 110 (1997)
Statements that share an explanation tend to lend inductive support to one another. For example, being told that Many furniture movers have a hard time financing a house increases the judged probability that Secretaries have a hard time financing a house. In contrast, statements with different explanations reduce one another s judged probability. Being told that Many furniture movers have bad backs decreases the judged probability that Secretaries have bad backs. I pose two questions concerning such discounting effects. First, does the reduction depend on explanations being mutually incompatible or does it occur when explanations are deemed irrelevant to one another? I found that a small discounting effect occurred with statements that were blatantly unrelated. However, the discounting effect also depended on a factor external to the argument being judged; the composition of the argument set. Second, are explanation effects attributable to changes in the belief afforded statements or to response-specific changes resulting from misunderstanding of the probability rating task or response bias? The results implicate changes in belief. Prior belief influenced conditional probability more than argument strength judgements, as it would if participants understood the tasks in the same way as the experimenter. Also, conditional probability true and false judgements were complementary, suggesting no response bias.
|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
Tania Lombrozo (2006). The Structure and Function of Explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (10):464-470.
Bob Rehder (2009). Causal‐Based Property Generalization. Cognitive Science 33 (3):301-344.
Constantinos Hadjichristidis, Steven Sloman, Rosemary Stevenson & David Over (2004). Feature Centrality and Property Induction. Cognitive Science 28 (1):45-74.
Similar books and articles
Charles G. Morgan (1999). Conditionals, Comparative Probability, and Triviality: The Conditional of Conditional Probability Cannot Be Represented in the Object Language. Topoi 18 (2):97-116.
R. Reber & N. Schwarz (1999). Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth. Consciousness and Cognition 8 (3):338-342.
Niki Pfeifer (2008). A Probability Logical Interpretation of Fallacies. In G. Kreuzbauer, N. Gratzl & E. Hiebl (eds.), Rhetorische Wissenschaft: Rede Und Argumentation in Theorie Und Praxis. Lit 225--244.
Paul Thagard (2010). Why Wasn't O.J. Convicted? Emotional Coherence in Legal Inference. Cognition and Emotion 17 (3):361-383.
S. G. Kilpatrick, K. I. Manktelow & D. E. Over (2007). Power of Source as a Factor in Deontic Inference. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (3):295 – 317.
Robert C. Stalnaker (1970). Probability and Conditionals. Philosophy of Science 37 (1):64-80.
Eyvind Ohm & Valerie A. Thompson (2006). Conditional Probability and Pragmatic Conditionals: Dissociating Truth and Effectiveness. Thinking and Reasoning 12 (3):257 – 280.
Cindy Stern (1978). On the Alleged Extensionality of "Causal Explanatory Contexts". Philosophy of Science 45 (4):614-625.
Matthew Haigh & Andrew J. Stewart (2011). The Influence of Clause Order, Congruency, and Probability on the Processing of Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 17 (4):402 - 423.
Denis J. Hilton (1996). Mental Models and Causal Explanation: Judgements of Probable Cause and Explanatory Relevance. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (4):273 – 308.
Added to index2009-02-11
Total downloads11 ( #339,623 of 1,938,712 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #290,621 of 1,938,712 )
How can I increase my downloads?