Inductive Reasoning

Question 1

Provide an example off furniture and levels of abstraction hierarchy

Answer 1

Furniture-> chair-> armchair, lounge chair

Question 2

What is the middle level of level of abstraction?

Answer 2

Basic level

Question 3

How are basic levels significant?

Answer 3

General agreement on hierarchies

Question 4

Top level of level of abstraction

Answer 4

Superordinate level

Question 5

Bottom level of levels of abstraction

Answer 5

Subordinate level

Question 6

Out of the list “clothes, pants, jeans” what is which level? What are each unique properties?

Answer 6

Superordinate: clothes- fabric to cover body
Basic: pants- two tubes to wear on legs, cover entire legs
Subordinate: jeans- denim

Question 7

Members of ____ level categories share significantly more attirbutes than those of superordinate categories

Answer 7

Basic

Question 8

Basic levels share enough attributes so that moving to a subordinate level is often?

Answer 8

Necessary, optimally cohesive enough compared to specific level (TMI)

Question 9

How were conceptual hierarchies discovered originally? In what domain?

Answer 9

Antropology, not psychology

Question 10

Describe the fidnings of Berlin et al and”oak” and “squirrels”

Answer 10

Different cultures label animals and plants found most agreement at basic level. Labels like oak and squirrels are more easily translated across cultures than “white oak” or “black squirrel”

Question 11

Basic levels are usually how many words compared to subordinate?

Answer 11

Basic are one, subordinate are two

Question 12

Describe the “white oak thrips” inference study

Answer 12

Ask if all oaks have thrips in US and Mayan culture. Gave a property of a subordinate level (species) and asked if it generalized to basic level (oak) and superordinate level (tree) and higher superordinate level (plant). People in both cultures believe both white oaks and oaks could have the disease but not plants and trees

Question 13

What do we typically categorize things by?

Answer 13

Occasionally by appearance, but primarily essentialists

Question 14

Provide evidence of essentialism in 3 to 4 year olds

Answer 14

Taught 3 to 4 year olds a novel property of a familiar animal or object (cats see in the dark). Children were then asked whether each of the four test items possessed the property. The items varied by category membership (same and different) and appearance (same and different). Showed different types of cats and skunk (similar appearance, different essence), and dinosaur (both different). Found that children almost always said that same category membership lead to children inferring they see in the dark but not different appearance

Question 15

Provide an example of the Keil mouse and squirrel study/ racoon and skunk study

Answer 15

Mouse wears a squirrel outfit and raccoon undergoes a surgery to become a skunk. Both children and adults assume that the mouse outfit squirrel is still a squirrel, however children believe the raccoon becomes a skunk, compared to adults. Some changes were temporary and some permanent. Young children thought permanent changes could alter an animal’s identity but not temporary ones. We categorize entities based on their essential properties but must learn what fixes a categories’ essence

Question 16

Trying to infer the properties of one category on the basis of another animal (coelacanth and animal

Answer 16

Category based induction

Question 17

Describe the robin bones vs ostritches and sparrows test.

Answer 17

Robin has sesamoid bones, therefore sparrows/ostriches have sesamoid bones- assume sparrow because ostritches tend to be an outlier within birds/share less properties

Question 18

Describe coverage in robins and ostriches bones

Answer 18

Robin/ostritch has sesamoid bones therefore all birds do- assume robin because robin is the most similar/covers more of the category of bird

Question 19

What were some weaknesses of similarity coverage model studies?

Answer 19

Were built from judgement of unfamiliar properties or blank properties- properties were meaningless to participants, but we do have knowledge of properties, framing of argument can change opinion/ categorization

Question 20

Describe knowledge effects in tunas, bears vs whales with livers and swimming patterns

Answer 20

Assume bears have two layered livers therefore whales do while behavioral property is similar in same location (tuna and whales).

Question 21

Describe framing effects in carrots and rabbits and enzymes

Answer 21

Carrots have enzyme x therefore rabbit have enzyme x, rabbits have enzyme x therefore carrots have enzyme. Both contain the same categories so similarity coverage is equated, but only a is suggestive of causal relation

Question 22

What is the benefits of Bayesian induction?

Answer 22

Can organize based on the structure of the domain, sensitive to a domain’s causal structure, can learn underlying causal structures that represent which domains (matrix,line,e tc)

Question 23

What are analogies able to facilitate

Answer 23

Problem solving
Categorization
Communication
Conceptual change
Explanation

Question 24

Describe Darwin and analogies

Answer 24

analogy between the evolution of the earth and the evolution of species

Question 25

Describe analogy between light and gravity

Answer 25

Kepler’s analogy

Question 26

____ analogies are informative of analogy in general

Answer 26

Historical analogy

Question 27

Gentner and the theory of structure mapping

Answer 27

Assumes knowledge= systeom of objects, attributes and relations and analogy, mapping and transfer of higher order relatiosn

Question 28

Describe how Rutherford used assumptions about space to matter

Answer 28

Sun attracts planets and are more massive than planets therefore planets revolve around the sun. Therefore, since the nucleus is more massive than the electrons and attracts electrons which therefore revolve around the nucleus. Electrons revolve around nucleus because nucleus attracts it and is more massive.

Question 29

Mapping from base to target

Answer 29

Look for correspondences between the domains Focus on matching relations not attributes Focus on systems of relations, not isolated relations Carry relations from base domain to target domain - analogical inferences