Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach.Colin Howson & Peter Urbach - 1989 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (1):126-131.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   291 citations  
  • Structured Statistical Models of Inductive Reasoning.Charles Kemp & Joshua B. Tenenbaum - 2009 - Psychological Review 116 (1):20-58.
  • A Rational Analysis of the Selection Task as Optimal Data Selection.Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater - 1994 - Psychological Review 101 (4):608-631.
  • On Conditionals.Dorothy Edgington - 1995 - Mind 104 (414):235-329.
  • Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367.
    Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts that argument content and source reliability (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • The Uses of Argument.STEPHEN TOULMIN - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   269 citations  
  • A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals.Jonathan Bennett - 2003 - Mind 114 (453):116-119.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   71 citations  
  • The Language of Thought.J. A. Fodor - 1978 - Critica 10 (28):140-143.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   383 citations  
  • Book Review: Luc Bovens and Stephan Hartmann "Bayesian Epistemology". [REVIEW]Erik J. Olsson - 2005 - Studia Logica 81 (2):289-292.
    Book Review of Luc Bovens and Stephan Hartmann *Bayesian Epistemology* by Erik J. Olsson.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Bayes or Bust.John Earman - 1992 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (3):399-424.
    The central problem with Bayesian philosophy of science is that it cannot take account of the relevance of simplicity and unification to confirmation, induction, and scientific inference. The standard Bayesian folklore about factoring simplicity into the priors, and convergence theorems as a way of grounding their objectivity are some of the myths that Earman's book does not address adequately.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   237 citations  
  • A Normative Theory of Argument Strength.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (1):1-24.
    In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We also provide some evidence based on our recent work on the fallacies as to why Bayesian probability might, in fact, be able to supply such an account. In the remainder of the article we discuss the general characteristics that make a specifically Bayesian approach desirable, and critically evaluate putative flaws of Bayesian probability that have been raised in the argumentation literature.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
    Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.Dedre Gentner - 1983 - Cognitive Science 7 (2):155-170.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   363 citations  
  • Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Argument Strength.Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15 (3):199-212.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models.Mark T. Keane, Tim Ledgeway & Stuart Duff - 1994 - Cognitive Science 18 (3):387-438.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Psychological Review 114 (3):704-732.
  • Explaining More by Drawing on Less.Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):90-91.
    One of the most striking features of is the detail with which behavior on logical reasoning tasks can now be predicted and explained. This detail is surprising, given the state of the field 10 to 15 years ago, and it has been brought about by a theoretical program that largely ignores consideration of cognitive processes, that is, any kind of internal behavior that generates overt responding. It seems that an increase in explanatory power can be achieved by restricting a psychological (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Circular Reasoning.Lance J. Rips - 2002 - Cognitive Science 26 (6):767-795.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2006 - Synthese 152 (2):207-236.
    We examine in detail three classic reasoning fallacies, that is, supposedly ``incorrect'' forms of argument. These are the so-called argumentam ad ignorantiam, the circular argument or petitio principii, and the slippery slope argument. In each case, the argument type is shown to match structurally arguments which are widely accepted. This suggests that it is not the form of the arguments as such that is problematic but rather something about the content of those examples with which they are typically justified. This (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • Children and Adults as Intuitive Scientists.Deanna Kuhn - 1989 - Psychological Review 96 (4):674-689.
  • A Theory of If: A Lexical Entry, Reasoning Program, and Pragmatic Principles.Martin D. Braine & David P. O'Brien - 1991 - Psychological Review 98 (2):182-203.
  • Reasoning and Conversation.Lance J. Rips - 1998 - Psychological Review 105 (3):411-441.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • On the Relation Between Logic and Thinking.Mary Henle - 1962 - Psychological Review 69 (4):366-378.
  • Against Logicist Cognitive Science.Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater - 1991 - Mind and Language 6 (1):1-38.
  • The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):39-61.
    The notion of “the burden of proof” plays an important role in real-world argumentation contexts, in particular in law. It has also been given a central role in normative accounts of argumentation, and has been used to explain a range of classic argumentation fallacies. We argue that in law the goal is to make practical decisions whereas in critical discussion the goal is frequently simply to increase or decrease degree of belief in a proposition. In the latter case, it is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Updating Beliefs in Light of Uncertain Evidence: Descriptive Assessment of Jeffrey's Rule.Daniel Osherson & Jiaying Zhao - 2010 - Thinking and Reasoning 16 (4):288-307.
  • Inductive Judgments About Natural Categories.Lance J. Rips - 1975 - Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14 (6):665-681.
    The present study examined the effects of semantic structure on simple inductive judgments about category members. For a particular category, subjects were told that one of the species had a given property and were asked to estimate the proportion of instances in the other species that possessed the property. The results indicated that category structure—in particular, the typicality of the species—influenced subjects' judgments. These results were interpreted by models based on the following assumption: When little is known about the underlying (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction.Keith J. Holyoak & Paul Thagard - 1989 - Cognitive Science 13 (3):295-355.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   223 citations  
  • The Modularity of Mind.Robert Cummins & Jerry Fodor - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):101.
  • Because Hitler Did It! Quantitative Tests of Bayesian Argumentation Using Ad Hominem.Adam J. L. Harris, Anne S. Hsu & Jens K. Madsen - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):311 - 343.
    Bayesian probability has recently been proposed as a normative theory of argumentation. In this article, we provide a Bayesian formalisation of the ad Hitlerum argument, as a special case of the ad hominem argument. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that people's evaluation of the argument is sensitive to probabilistic factors deemed relevant on a Bayesian formalisation. Moreover, we provide the first parameter-free quantitative evidence in favour of the Bayesian approach to argumentation. Quantitative Bayesian prescriptions were derived from participants' stated subjective (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • The Disguised Abusive Ad Hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic Manoeuvring with Direct Personal Attacks.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):344 - 364.
    The main finding of a comprehensive empirical research project on the intersubjective acceptability of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels, 2009) is that ordinary language users judge discussion moves that are considered fallacious from an argumentation-theoretical perspective as unreasonable. In light of this finding it is remarkable that in everyday argumentative discourse fallacies occur regularly and seem many times not to be noticed by the participants in the discourse. This also goes for the abusive argumentum ad hominem. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Reasoning and Argumentation: Towards an Integrated Psychology of Argumentation.Jos Hornikx & Ulrike Hahn - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):225 - 243.
    Although argumentation plays an essential role in our lives, there is no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Instead research on argumentation is conducted in a number of separate research communities that are spread across disciplines and have only limited interaction. With a view to bridging these different strands, we first distinguish between three meanings of the word ?argument?: argument as a reason, argument as a structured sequence of reasons and claims, and argument as a social exchange. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Category-Based Induction.Daniel N. Osherson, Edward E. Smith, Ormond Wilkie & Alejandro López - 1990 - Psychological Review 97 (2):185-200.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   114 citations  
  • Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   276 citations  
  • Distributed Representations of Structure: A Theory of Analogical Access and Mapping.John E. Hummel & Keith J. Holyoak - 1997 - Psychological Review 104 (3):427-466.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   119 citations  
  • Probability Logic and the Modus Ponens-Modus Tollens Asymmetry in Conditional Inference.Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater - 2008 - In Nick Chater & Mike Oaksford (eds.), The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 97--120.
  • Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.Rosalind Driver, Paul Newton & Jonathan Osborne - 2000 - Science Education 84 (3):287-312.
  • Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content.P. C. Wason & P. N. Johnson - 1974 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 7 (3):193-197.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   188 citations  
  • Science as Argument: Implications for Teaching and Learning Scientific Thinking.Deanna Kuhn - 1993 - Science Education 77 (3):319-337.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations