Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T16:28:21.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic rationality norms provide research roadmaps and clarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Niki Pfeifer
Niki Pfeifer
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Fakultät 10, Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, D-80539 München, Germany. Niki.Pfeifer@lrz.uni-muenchen.dewww.pfeifer-research.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Normative theories like probability logic provide roadmaps for psychological investigations. They make theorizing precise. Therefore, normative considerations should not be subtracted from psychological research. I explain why conditional elimination inferences involve at least two norm paradigms; why reporting agreement with rationality norms is informative; why alleged asymmetric relations between formal and psychological theories are symmetric; and I discuss the arbitration problem.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 263 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Coletti, G. & Scozzafava, R. (2002) Probabilistic logic in a coherent setting. Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1982) The psychology of deductive reasoning. Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, M. (2004) System LS: A three-tiered nonmonotonic reasoning system. Computational Intelligence 20(1):89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. (2005) On using human nonmonotonic reasoning to inform artificial systems. Psychologica Belgica 45:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugard, A. J. B., Pfeifer, N., Mayerhofer, B. & Kleiter, G. D. (2011b) How people interpret conditionals: Shifts towards the conditional event. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(3):635–48.Google Scholar
Kraus, S., Lehmann, D. & Magidor, M. (1990) Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44:167–207.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, N. & Kleiter, G. D. (2002) Experiments on nonmonotonic reasoning: The coherence of human probability judgments. In: Proceedings of the 1st Salzburg Workshop on Paradigms of Cognition, ed. Leitgeb, H. & Schurz, G.. Universität Salzburg, Institut für Philosophie. [Shortened version published in 2005 in Synthese 146(1–2):93–109.] Google Scholar
Pfeifer, N. & Kleiter, G. D. (2005) Towards a mental probability logic. Psychologica Belgica 45(1):71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, N. & Kleiter, G. D. (2006) Inference in conditional probability logic. Kybernetika 42:391–404.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, N. & Kleiter, G. D. (2009) Framing human inference by coherence based probability logic. Journal of Applied Logic 7(2):206–17.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, N. & Kleiter, G. D. (2010) The conditional in mental probability logic. In: Cognition and conditionals: Probability and logic in human thought, ed. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., pp. 153–73. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, N. & Kleiter, G. D. (2011) Uncertain deductive reasoning. In: The science of reason: A Festschrift for Jonathan St. B.T. Evans, ed. Manktelow, K. I., Over, D. E. & Elqayam, S., pp. 145–66. Psychology Press.Google Scholar