David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 7 (4):367 – 390 (2001)
Four experiments investigated uncertainty about a premise in a deductive argument as a function of the expertise of the speaker and of the conversational context. The procedure mimicked everyday reasoning in that participants were not told that the premises were to be treated as certain. The results showed that the perceived likelihood of a conclusion was greater when the major or the minor premise was uttered by an expert rather than a novice (Experiment 1). The results also showed that uncertainty about the conclusion was higher when the major premise was uttered by a novice and an alternative premise by an expert, compared to when the major premise was uttered by an expert and the alternative by a novice (Experiment 2). Similarly, the believability of a conclusion was considerably lower when the minor premise was uttered by a novice and denied by an expert, as opposed to when an expert uttered the minor premise and a novice denied it (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 showed that the nature of the uncertainty induced by a denial of the minor premise depended on whether or not the context was a conversation. These results pose difficult problems for current theories of reasoning, as current theories are based on the results of experiments in which the premises are treated as certain. Our discussion of the results emphasises the importance of pragmatics in reasoning, namely, the role of general knowledge about the world in assessing the probability of a premise uttered by an expert or a novice and the role of interpretations of the premise based on pragmatic inferences in revising these initial probabilities.
|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
David E. Over & Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2003). The Probability of Conditionals: The Psychological Evidence. Mind and Language 18 (4):340–358.
Daniel Lassiter & Noah D. Goodman (2015). How Many Kinds of Reasoning? Inference, Probability, and Natural Language Semantics. Cognition 136:123-134.
Similar books and articles
Victoria F. Shaw (1996). The Cognitive Processes in Informal Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (1):51 – 80.
Aidan Feeney & Evan Heit (2011). Properties of the Diversity Effect in Category-Based Inductive Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 17 (2):156 - 181.
Jean-Fran (2007). Modus Tollens, Modus Shmollens: Contrapositive Reasoning and the Pragmatics of Negation. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (2):207 – 222.
Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schaeken, Walter Schroyens & Gery D'Ydewalle (2000). Strategies During Complex Conditional Inferences. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (2):125 – 160.
Orlando Espino, Carlos Santamaria & Juan A. Garcia-Madruga (2000). Activation of End-Terms in Syllogistic Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (1):67 – 89.
Simon J. Handley & Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2000). Supposition and Representation in Human Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):273 – 311.
Hilary J. Leevers & Paul L. Harris (1999). Persisting Effects of Instruction on Young Children's Syllogistic Reasoning with Incongruent and Abstract Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (2):145 – 173.
Mary R. Newsome & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2006). How Falsity Dispels Fallacies. Thinking and Reasoning 12 (2):214 – 234.
Guy Politzer (2005). Uncertainty and the Suppression of Inferences. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (1):5 – 33.
Christian George (1997). Reasoning From Uncertain Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 3 (3):161 – 189.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #383,052 of 1,699,739 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,699,739 )
How can I increase my downloads?