Search results for 'counterfactual reasoning' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  31
    Brian Leahy, Eva Rafetseder & Josef Perner (2014). Basic Conditional Reasoning: How Children Mimic Counterfactual Reasoning. Studia Logica 102 (4):793-810.
    Children approach counterfactual questions about stories with a reasoning strategy that falls short of adults’ Counterfactual Reasoning (CFR). It was dubbed “Basic Conditional Reasoning” (BCR) in Rafetseder et al. (Child Dev 81(1):376–389, 2010). In this paper we provide a characterisation of the differences between BCR and CFR using a distinction between permanent and nonpermanent features of stories and Lewis/Stalnaker counterfactual logic. The critical difference pertains to how consistency between a story and a conditional antecedent (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  9
    Yunfeng Zhang, Jaehyon Paik & Peter Pirolli (2015). Reinforcement Learning and Counterfactual Reasoning Explain Adaptive Behavior in a Changing Environment. Topics in Cognitive Science 7 (2):368-381.
    Animals routinely adapt to changes in the environment in order to survive. Though reinforcement learning may play a role in such adaptation, it is not clear that it is the only mechanism involved, as it is not well suited to producing rapid, relatively immediate changes in strategies in response to environmental changes. This research proposes that counterfactual reasoning might be an additional mechanism that facilitates change detection. An experiment is conducted in which a task state changes over time (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  38
    Noel Hendrickson (2012). Counterfactual Reasoning and the Problem of Selecting Antecedent Scenarios. Synthese 185 (3):365-386.
    A recent group of social scientists have argued that counterfactual questions play an essential role in their disciplines, and that it is possible to have rigorous methods to investigate them. Unfortunately, there has been little (if any) interaction between these social scientists and the philosophers who have long held that rigorous counterfactual reasoning is possible. In this paper, I hope to encourage some fresh thinking on both sides by creating new connections between them. I describe what I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  22
    Lance J. Rips & Brian J. Edwards (2013). Inference and Explanation in Counterfactual Reasoning. Cognitive Science 37 (6):1107-1135.
    This article reports results from two studies of how people answer counterfactual questions about simple machines. Participants learned about devices that have a specific configuration of components, and they answered questions of the form “If component X had not operated [failed], would component Y have operated?” The data from these studies indicate that participants were sensitive to the way in which the antecedent state is described—whether component X “had not operated” or “had failed.” Answers also depended on whether the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  32
    Josef Perner & Eva Rafetseder (2011). Is Reasoning From Counterfactual Antecedents Evidence for Counterfactual Reasoning? Thinking and Reasoning 16 (2):131-155.
    In most developmental studies the only error children could make on counterfactual tasks was to answer with the current state of affairs. It was concluded that children who did not show this error are able to reason counterfactually. However, children might have avoided this error by using basic conditional reasoning (Rafetseder, Cristi-Vargas, & Perner, 2010). Basic conditional reasoning takes background assumptions represented as conditionals about how the world works. If an antecedent of one of these conditionals is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6.  14
    Keith D. Markman, Ronald A. Elizaga, Jennifer J. Ratcliff & Matthew N. McMullen (2007). The Interplay Between Counterfactual Reasoning and Feedback Dynamics in Producing Inferences About the Self. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (2):188 – 206.
    Counterfactual reasoning research typically demonstrates contrast effects—nearly winning evokes frustration, whereas nearly losing evokes exhilaration. The present work, however, describes conditions under which assimilative responses (i.e., when judgements are pulled towards a comparison standard) also occur. Participants solved analogies and learned that they had either nearly attained a target score or nearly failed to attain it. Participants in the no trajectory condition received this feedback in the absence of any prior feedback, whereas those in the trajectory condition received (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Robert Stalnaker (1996). Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games. Economics and Philosophy 12 (2):133.
    Deliberation about what to do in any context requires reasoning about what will or would happen in various alternative situations, including situations that the agent knows will never in fact be realized. In contexts that involve two or more agents who have to take account of each others' deliberation, the counterfactual reasoning may become quite complex. When I deliberate, I have to consider not only what the causal effects would be of alternative choices that I might make, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   30 citations  
  8. Alan Hájek (2002). Counterfactual Reasoning (Philosophical Aspects)—Quantitative. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier 2872-2874.
    Counterfactuals are a species of conditionals. They are propositions or sentences, expressed by or equivalent to subjunctive conditionals of the form 'if it were the case that A, then it would be the case that B', or 'if it had been the case that A, then it would have been the case that B'; A is called the antecedent, and B the consequent. Counterfactual reasoning typically involves the entertaining of hypothetical states of affairs: the antecedent is believed or (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  38
    Mats Johansson & Linus Broström (2011). Counterfactual Reasoning in Surrogate Decision Making – Another Look. Bioethics 25 (5):244-249.
    Incompetent patients need to have someone else make decisions on their behalf. According to the Substituted Judgment Standard the surrogate decision maker ought to make the decision that the patient would have made, had he or she been competent. Objections have been raised against this traditional construal of the standard on the grounds that it involves flawed counterfactual reasoning, and amendments have been suggested within the framework of possible worlds semantics. The paper shows that while this approach may (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  31
    Morteza Dehghani, Rumen Iliev & Stefan Kaufmann (2012). Causal Explanation and Fact Mutability in Counterfactual Reasoning. Mind and Language 27 (1):55-85.
    Recent work on the interpretation of counterfactual conditionals has paid much attention to the role of causal independencies. One influential idea from the theory of Causal Bayesian Networks is that counterfactual assumptions are made by intervention on variables, leaving all of their causal non-descendants unaffected. But intervention is not applicable across the board. For instance, backtracking counterfactuals, which involve reasoning from effects to causes, cannot proceed by intervention in the strict sense, for otherwise they would be equivalent (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  11.  92
    James Woodward (2011). Psychological Studies of Causal and Counterfactual Reasoning. In Christoph Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Sarah R. Beck (eds.), Understanding Counterfactuals, Understanding Causation. Oxford University Press 16.
    Counterfactual theories of causation of the sort presented in Mackie, 1974, and Lewis, 1973 are a familiar part of the philosophical landscape. Such theories are typically advanced primarily as accounts of the metaphysics of causation. But they also raise empirical psychological issues concerning the processes and representations that underlie human causal reasoning. For example, do human subjects internally represent causal claims in terms of counterfactual judgments and when they engage in causal reasoning, does this involves (...) about counterfactual claims? This paper explores several such issues from a broadly interventionist perspective. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12.  8
    Vincent Spade Paul (1982). Three Theories of Obligationes: Burley, Kilvington and Swyneshed on Counterfactual Reasoning. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (1):1-32.
    This paper defends the thesis that the mediaeval genre of logical treatises De obligatiombus contained a theoretical account of counterfacutal reasoning, perhaps the first such account in the history of philosophy. This interpretation helps to explain some of the theoretical disputes in the obligationes literature in the first half of the fourteenth century. Section 1 is introductory. Section 2 presents Walter Burley's theory, while section 3 argues for the counterfactual interpretation of obligationes and section 4 discusses difficulties with (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Rumen Iliev Morteza Dehghani (2012). Causal Explanation and Fact Mutability in Counterfactual Reasoning. Mind and Language 27 (1):55-85.
    Recent work on the interpretation of counterfactual conditionals has paid much attention to the role of causal independencies. One influential idea from the theory of Causal Bayesian Networks is that counterfactual assumptions are made by intervention on variables, leaving all of their causal non‐descendants unaffected. But intervention is not applicable across the board. For instance, backtracking counterfactuals, which involve reasoning from effects to causes, cannot proceed by intervention in the strict sense, for otherwise they would be equivalent (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  36
    Malcolm R. Forster (1986). Counterfactual Reasoning in the Bell-Epr Paradox. Philosophy of Science 53 (1):133-144.
    Skyrms's formulation of the argument against stochastic hidden variables in quantum mechanics using conditionals with chance consequences suffers from an ambiguity in its "conservation" assumption. The strong version, which Skyrms needs, packs in a "no-rapport" assumption in addition to the weaker statement of the "experimental facts." On the positive side, I argue that Skyrms's proof has two unnoted virtues (not shared by previous proofs): (1) it shows that certain difficulties that arise for deterministic hidden variable theories that exploit a nonclassical (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  15.  9
    David Benatar (2001). To Be or Not to Have Been?: Defective Counterfactual Reasoning About One’s Own Existence. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):255-266.
    Most people think that their coming into existence benefited them. This paper reports on and analyses a study that shows that most people, when making such a judgement, do not really consider the counterfactual case -- the scenario in which they never come into existence. Because proper consideration is not given to both options, the ranking of one over the other is not an appropriately informed judgement. The preference for having come into existence is thus a profoundly unreliable indicator (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  5
    Bob Tiel & Walter Schaeken (2016). Processing Conversational Implicatures: Alternatives and Counterfactual Reasoning. Cognitive Science 40 (5):n/a-n/a.
    In a series of experiments, Bott and Noveck found that the computation of scalar inferences, a variety of conversational implicature, caused a delay in response times. In order to determine what aspect of the inferential process that underlies scalar inferences caused this delay, we extended their paradigm to three other kinds of inferences: free choice inferences, conditional perfection, and exhaustivity in “it”-clefts. In contrast to scalar inferences, the computation of these three kinds of inferences facilitated response times. Following a suggestion (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  4
    Eva Rafetseder & Josef Perner (2012). When the Alternative Would Have Been Better: Counterfactual Reasoning and the Emergence of Regret. Cognition and Emotion 26 (5):800-819.
  18.  18
    Abner Shimony & Howard Stein (2003). On Quantum Non-Locality, Special Relativity, and Counterfactual Reasoning. In A. Ashtekar (ed.), Revisiting the Foundations of Relativistic Physics. 499--521.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  19.  5
    Sara L. Uckelman (2015). Sit Verum Obligationes and Counterfactual Reasoning. Vivarium 53 (1):90-113.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  38
    Ana Cristina Quelhas & Ruth Byrne (2003). Reasoning with Deontic and Counterfactual Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (1):43 – 65.
    We report two new phenomena of deontic reasoning: (1) For conditionals with deontic content such as, "If the nurse cleaned up the blood then she must have worn rubber gloves", reasoners make more modus tollens inferences (from "she did not wear rubber gloves" to "she did not clean up the blood") compared to conditionals with epistemic content. (2) For conditionals in the subjunctive mood with deontic content, such as, "If the nurse had cleaned up the blood then she must (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21.  8
    Ruth Mj Byrne & Alessandra Tasso (1994). Counterfactual Reasoning: Inferences From Hypothetical Conditionals. In Ashwin Ram & Kurt Eiselt (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  1
    Roberta Ferrario (2001). Counterfactual Reasoning. In P. Bouquet V. Akman (ed.), Modeling and Using Context. Springer 170--183.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Auria Albacete, Fernando Contreras, Clara Bosque, Ester Gilabert, Ángela Albiach, José M. Menchón, Benedicto Crespo-Facorro & Rosa Ayesa-Arriola (2016). Counterfactual Reasoning in Non-Psychotic First-Degree Relatives of People with Schizophrenia. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Cristina Bicchieri, Richard Jeffrey & Brian Skyrms (1999). Knowledge, Belief, and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games. In Cristina Bicchieri, Richard C. Jeffrey & Brian Skyrms (eds.), The Logic of Strategy. Oxford University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Nicole Van Hoeck (2015). Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Counterfactual Reasoning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  8
    Sarah R. Beck, Daniel P. Weisberg, Patrick Burns & Kevin J. Riggs (2014). Conditional Reasoning and Emotional Experience: A Review of the Development of Counterfactual Thinking. [REVIEW] Studia Logica 102 (4):673-689.
    What do human beings use conditional reasoning for? A psychological consequence of counterfactual conditional reasoning is emotional experience, in particular, regret and relief. Adults’ thoughts about what might have been influence their evaluations of reality. We discuss recent psychological experiments that chart the relationship between children’s ability to engage in conditional reasoning and their experience of counterfactual emotions. Relative to conditional reasoning, counterfactual emotions are late developing. This suggests that children need not only (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  4
    Barbara A. Spellman, Alexandra P. Kincannon & Stephen J. Stose (2005). The Relation Between Counterfactual and Causal Reasoning. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge 28--43.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  28. A. Spellman Barbara, P. Kincannon Alexandra & J. Stose Stephen (2005). The Relation Between Counterfactual and Causal Reasoning. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  30
    Paul L. Harris, Tim German & Patrick Mills (1996). Children's Use of Counterfactual Thinking in Causal Reasoning. Cognition 61 (3):233-259.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  30. Jonathan Phillips & Liane Young (2011). Apparent Paradoxes in Moral Reasoning; Or How You Forced Him to Do It, Even Though He Wasn’T Forced to Do It. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society:138-143.
    The importance of situational constraint for moral evaluations is widely accepted in philosophy, psychology, and the law. However, recent work suggests that this relationship is actually bidirectional: moral evaluations can also influence our judgments of situational constraint. For example, if an agent is thought to have acted immorally rather than morally, that agent is often judged to have acted with greater freedom and under less situational constraint. Moreover, when considering interpersonal situations, we judge that an agent who forces another to (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  6
    David R. Mandel (2003). Judgment Dissociation Theory: An Analysis of Differences in Causal, Counterfactual and Covariational Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 (3):419.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  32.  4
    Barbara A. Spellman & Dieynaba G. Ndiaye (2007). On the Relation Between Counterfactual and Causal Reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (5-6):466-467.
    We critique the distinction Byrne makes between strong causes and enabling conditions, and its implications, on both theoretical and empirical grounds. First, we believe that the difference is psychological, not logical. Second, we disagree that there is a strict Third, we disagree that it is easier for people to generate causes than counterfactuals.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. J. Perner & E. Rafetseder (2011). Counterfactual and Other Forms of Conditional Reasoning: Children Lost in the Nearest Possible World. In Christoph Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Sarah R. Beck (eds.), Understanding Counterfactuals, Understanding Causation. Oxford University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  28
    Teresa McCormack, Stephen Andrew Butterfill, Christoph Hoerl & Patrick Burns (2009). Cue Competition Effects and Young Children's Causal and Counterfactual Inferences. Developmental Psychology 45 (6):1563-1575.
    The authors examined cue competition effects in young children using the blicket detector paradigm, in which objects are placed either singly or in pairs on a novel machine and children must judge which objects have the causal power to make the machine work. Cue competition effects were found in a 5- to 6-year-old group but not in a 4-year-old group. Equivalent levels of forward and backward blocking were found in the former group. Children's counterfactual judgments were subsequently examined by (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  35. Linton Wang & Wei-Fen Ma (2014). Comparative Syllogism and Counterfactual Knowledge. Synthese 191 (6):1327-1348.
    Comparative syllogism is a type of scientific reasoning widely used, explicitly or implicitly, for inferences from observations to conclusions about effectiveness, but its philosophical significance has not been fully elaborated or appreciated. In its simplest form, the comparative syllogism derives a conclusion about the effectiveness of a factor (e.g. a treatment or an exposure) on a certain property via an experiment design using a test (experimental) group and a comparison (control) group. Our objective is to show that the comparative (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  19
    Simon Beck (1993). Counterfactuals and the Law. South African Journal of Philosophy 12 (3).
    This article is concerned with the place counterfactual reasoning occupies in South African law, and how philosophy might be able to help the law. I point out some of the more important and unavoidable uses of counterfactual reasoning in our law. Following this I make some suggestions as to how philosophy, and especially informal logic, can be of help to the law. Finally, I make some suggestions as to how the law in turn can help philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  30
    Deena S. Weisberg & Alison Gopnik (2013). Pretense, Counterfactuals, and Bayesian Causal Models: Why What Is Not Real Really Matters. Cognitive Science 37 (7):1368-1381.
    Young children spend a large portion of their time pretending about non-real situations. Why? We answer this question by using the framework of Bayesian causal models to argue that pretending and counterfactual reasoning engage the same component cognitive abilities: disengaging with current reality, making inferences about an alternative representation of reality, and keeping this representation separate from reality. In turn, according to causal models accounts, counterfactual reasoning is a crucial tool that children need to plan for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38.  29
    Karolina Krzyżanowska (2013). Belief Ascription and the Ramsey Test. Synthese 190 (1):21-36.
    In this paper, I analyse a finding by Riggs and colleagues that there is a close connection between people’s ability to reason with counterfactual conditionals and their capacity to attribute false beliefs to others. The result indicates that both processes may be governed by one cognitive mechanism, though false belief attribution seems to be slightly more cognitively demanding. Given that the common denominator for both processes is suggested to be a form of the Ramsey test, I investigate whether Stalnaker’s (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  29
    Tim De Mey (2005). Remodeling the Past. Foundations of Science 10 (1):47-66.
    In some of the papers in which she develops and defends the mental modelview of thought experiments in physics, Nersessian expresses the belief that her account has implications for thought experiments in other domains as well. In this paper, I argue, firstly, that counterfactual reasoning has a legitimate place in historical inquiry, and secondly, that the mental model view can account for such "alternative histories". I proceed as follows. Firstly, I review the main accounts of thought experiments in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  59
    Jiji Zhang (2013). A Lewisian Logic of Causal Counterfactuals. Minds and Machines 23 (1):77-93.
    In the artificial intelligence literature a promising approach to counterfactual reasoning is to interpret counterfactual conditionals based on causal models. Different logics of such causal counterfactuals have been developed with respect to different classes of causal models. In this paper I characterize the class of causal models that are Lewisian in the sense that they validate the principles in Lewis’s well-known logic of counterfactuals. I then develop a system sound and complete with respect to this class. The (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41. Gabriele Contessa (2006). On the Supposed Temporal Asymmetry of Counterfactual Dependence; Or: It Wouldn't Have Taken a Miracle! Dialectica 60 (4):461–473.
    The thesis that a temporal asymmetry of counterfactual dependence characterizes our world plays a central role in Lewis’s philosophy, as. among other things, it underpins one of Lewis most renowned theses—that causation can be analyzed in terms of counterfactual dependence. To maintain that a temporal asymmetry of counterfactual dependence characterizes our world, Lewis committed himself to two other theses. The first is that the closest possible worlds at which the antecedent of a counterfactual conditional is true (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  99
    Jonathan Eric Adler & Lance J. Rips (eds.) (2008). Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations. Cambridge University Press.
    This interdisciplinary work is a collection of major essays on reasoning: deductive, inductive, abductive, belief revision, defeasible (non-monotonic), cross cultural, conversational, and argumentative. They are each oriented toward contemporary empirical studies. The book focuses on foundational issues, including paradoxes, fallacies, and debates about the nature of rationality, the traditional modes of reasoning, as well as counterfactual and causal reasoning. It also includes chapters on the interface between reasoning and other forms of thought. In general, this (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  43.  34
    Caren A. Frosch, Teresa McCormack, David A. Lagnado & Patrick Burns (2012). Are Causal Structure and Intervention Judgments Inextricably Linked? A Developmental Study. Cognitive Science 36 (2):261-285.
    The application of the formal framework of causal Bayesian Networks to children’s causal learning provides the motivation to examine the link between judgments about the causal structure of a system, and the ability to make inferences about interventions on components of the system. Three experiments examined whether children are able to make correct inferences about interventions on different causal structures. The first two experiments examined whether children’s causal structure and intervention judgments were consistent with one another. In Experiment 1, children (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44. Boris Kment (2014). Modality and Explanatory Reasoning. OUP Oxford.
    Boris Kment takes a new approach to the study of modality that emphasises the origin of modal notions in everyday thought. He argues that the concepts of necessity and possibility originate in counterfactual reasoning, which allows us to investigate explanatory connections. Contrary to accepted views, explanation is more fundamental than modality.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  45. Arif Ahmed (2000). Hale on Some Arguments for the Necessity of Necessity. Mind 109 (433):81-91.
    The paper argues against Bob Hale's (1999) argument that enquirers must regard some truths as necessary truths. Hale's argument against Quinean skepticism. like many similar arguments due to McFetridge, Wright and others, involves a quantifier shift fallacy.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  20
    Roger Stanev (2012). Modelling and Simulating Early Stopping of RCTs: A Case Study of Early Stop Due to Harm. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 24 (4):513-526.
    Despite efforts from regulatory agencies (e.g. NIH, FDA), recent systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that top medical journals continue to publish trials without requiring authors to report details for readers to evaluate early stopping decisions carefully. This article presents a systematic way of modelling and simulating interim monitoring decisions of RCTs. By taking an approach that is both general and rigorous, the proposed framework models and evaluates early stopping decisions of RCTs based on a clear and consistent (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  16
    W. M. De Muynck, W. De Baere & H. Martens (1994). Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Joint Measurement of Incompatible Observables, and Counterfactual Definiteness. Foundations of Physics 24 (12):1589-1664.
    The validity of the conclusion to the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, accepted widely today as the only reasonable solution to the EPR and Bell issues, is questioned and criticized. Arguments are presented which remove the compelling character of this conclusion and make clear that it is not the most obvious solution. Alternative solutions are developed which are free of the contradictions related with the nonlocality conclusion. Firstly, the dependence on the adopted interpretation is shown, with the conclusion that the alleged (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  48.  13
    Bruce Christianson (2013). Living in an Impossible World: Real-Izing the Consequences of Intransitive Trust. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Technology 26 (4):411-429.
    Many accounts of online trust are based upon mechanisms for building reputation. Trust is portrayed as desirable, and handing off trust is easier if trust is modelled to be transitive. But in the analysis of cyber-security protocols, trust is usually used as a substitute for certain knowledge: it follows that if there is no residual risk, then there is no need for trust. On this grimmer understanding, the less that users are required to trust, the better. Involuntary transitivity of trust (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  4
    Jens Andreas Terum & Frode Svartdal (2012). Judgements Vs Affective Evaluations of Counterfactual Outcomes. Thinking and Reasoning 19 (1):78 - 95.
    (2013). Judgements vs affective evaluations of counterfactual outcomes. Thinking & Reasoning: Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 78-95. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2012.739098.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  10
    John Best (2005). Recognition of Proofs in Conditional Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):326 – 348.
    Relatively little is known about those who consistently produce the valid response to Modus Tollens (MT) problems. In two studies, people who responded correctly to MT problems indicated how “convinced” they were by proofs of conditional reasoning conclusions. The first experiment showed that MT competent reasoners found accurate proofs of MT reasoning more convincing than similar “proofs” of invalid reasoning. Similarly, there was a tendency for MT competent reasoners to find an initial counterfactual supposition more convincing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000