|Abstract||Sieg has proposed axioms for computability whose models can be reduced to Turing machines. This lecture will investigate to what extent these axioms hold for reasoning. In particular we focus on the requirement that the configurations that a computing agent (whether human or machine) operates on must be ’immediately recognisable’. If one thinks of reasoning as derivation in a calculus, this requirement is satisfied; but even in contexts which are only slightly less formal, the requirement cannot be met. Our main example will be the Wason selection task, a propositional reasoning task in which in a typical (undergraduate) subject group only around 5% arrive at the answer dictated by classical logic. The instructions for this task (as well as other standard tasks in the psychology of reasoning, such as syllogisms) do not contain any ’immediately recognisable’ configurations. The subject must try to find an interpretation of the task by making the various elements in the instructions cohere, in effect solving a difficult constraint satisfaction problem, which has no unique solution. The subject has given a complete interpretation of the task if she can formulate the problem posed in the task as a theorem to be proved. The complexity of such theorems can be quite high; e.g. for the propositional Wason selection task the theorem can be in Σ1 3 . This sounds implausible, but we’ll present experimental data confirming this point|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Pascal Wagner-Egger (2007). Conditional Reasoning and the Wason Selection Task: Biconditional Interpretation Instead of Reasoning Bias. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):484 – 505.
David Hardman (1998). Does Reasoning Occur on the Selection Task? A Comparison of Relevance-Based Theories. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (4):353 – 376.
Guy Politzer & Laura Macchi (2000). Reasoning and Pragmatics. Mind and Society 1 (1):73-93.
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.
Dan Sperber (forthcoming). Use or Misuse of the Selection Task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides and Tooby. Cognition.
Raymond S. Nickerson (1996). Hempel's Paradox and Wason's Selection Task: Logical and Psychological Puzzles of Confirmation. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (1):1 – 31.
Barbara A. Spellman (1999). Hypothesis Testing: Strategy Selection for Generalising Versus Limiting Hypotheses. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):67 – 92.
Simone Duca (2009). Rationality and the Wason Selection Task: A Logical Account. Psyche 15 (1):109-131.
Cynthia Koenig & Richard Griggs (2004). Facilitation and Analogical Transfer in the THOG Task. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (4):355 – 370.
Mike Oaksford (2002). Contrast Classes and Matching Bias as Explanations of the Effects of Negation on Conditional Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):135 – 151.
Damian P. Birney & Graeme S. Halford (2002). Cognitive Complexity of Suppositional Reasoning: An Application of the Relational Complexity Metric to the Knight-Knave Task. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):109 – 134.
Karl Christoph Klauer (1997). Working Memory Involvement in Propositional and Spatial Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 3 (1):9 – 47.
Hiroshi Yama (2001). Matching Versus Optimal Data Selection in the Wason Selection Task. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (3):295 – 311.
Niki Pfeifer & G. D. Kleiter (2011). Uncertain Deductive Reasoning. In K. Manktelow, D. E. Over & S. Elqayam (eds.), The Science of Reason: A Festschrift for Jonathan St B.T. Evans. Psychology Press.
Added to index2012-06-15
Total downloads14 ( #90,469 of 722,774 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,982 of 722,774 )
How can I increase my downloads?