13 found
Order:
  1.  54
    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   19 citations  
  2.  31
    The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  3.  74
    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   25 citations  
  4.  49
    Public Reception of Climate Science: Coherence, Reliability, and Independence.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2016 - Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (1):180-195.
    Possible measures to mitigate climate change require global collective actions whose impacts will be felt by many, if not all. Implementing such actions requires successful communication of the reasons for them, and hence the underlying climate science, to a degree that far exceeds typical scientific issues which do not require large-scale societal response. Empirical studies have identified factors, such as the perceived level of consensus in scientific opinion and the perceived reliability of scientists, that can limit people's trust in science (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  5.  21
    James is Polite and Punctual (and Useless): A Bayesian Formalisation of Faint Praise.Adam J. L. Harris, Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Thinking and Reasoning 19 (3-4):414-429.
  6.  7
    Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events: A Cautionary Note.Adam J. L. Harris & Ulrike Hahn - 2011 - Psychological Review 118 (1):135-154.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  7.  34
    Rational Argument, Rational Inference.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Mike Oaksford - 2013 - Argument and Computation 4 (1):21 - 35.
    (2013). Rational argument, rational inference. Argument & Computation: Vol. 4, Formal Models of Reasoning in Cognitive Psychology, pp. 21-35. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.689327.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  8.  21
    Estimating the Probability of Negative Events.Adam J. L. Harris, Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Cognition 110 (1):51-64.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9.  5
    Conceptual and Direct Replications Fail to Support the Stake-Likelihood Hypothesis as an Explanation for the Interdependence of Utility and Likelihood Judgments.Laura de Molière & Adam J. L. Harris - 2016 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145 (4):e13-e26.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  41
    How Many Laypeople Holding a Popular Opinion Are Needed to Counter an Expert Opinion?Jos Hornikx, Adam J. L. Harris & Jordy Boekema - 2018 - Thinking and Reasoning 24 (1):117-128.
    ABSTRACTIn everyday situations, people regularly receive information from large groups of people and from single experts. Although lay opinions and expert opinions have been studied extensively in isolation, the present study examined the relationship between the two by asking how many laypeople are needed to counter an expert opinion. A Bayesian formalisation allowed the prescription of this quantity. Participants were subsequently asked to assess how many laypeople are needed in different situations. The results demonstrate that people are sensitive to the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  8
    Underlying Wishes and Nudged Choices.Yiling Lin, Magda Osman, Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel Read - 2018 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 24 (4):459-475.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  50
    The Illusion of Control: A Bayesian Perspective.Adam J. L. Harris & Magda Osman - 2012 - Synthese 189 (S1):29-38.
    In the absence of an objective contingency, psychological studies have shown that people nevertheless attribute outcomes to their own actions. Thus, by wrongly inferring control in chance situations people appear to hold false beliefs concerning their agency, and are said to succumb to an illusion of control (IoC). In the current article, we challenge traditional conceptualizations of the illusion by examining the thesis that the IoC reflects rational and adaptive decision making. Firstly, we propose that the IoC is a by-product (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  2
    Understanding the Coherence of the Severity Effect and Optimism Phenomena: Lessons From Attention.Adam J. L. Harris - 2017 - Consciousness and Cognition 50:30-44.