reasoning
= cognitive processes that transform given information (a set of premises) in order to reach conclusions
deductive reasoning
= general –> specific
- deductive validity = when premises are true, you reason according to logical principles, then your conclusion cannot be wrong
inductive reasoning
= specific –> general
- conclusion can contain new information
- inductive strength = argument has inductive strength if it is impossible for premises to be true and conclusion to be false
inductive
- analogical reasoning
- apply found relationship/analogy to determine a solution
- verbal (“A is to B what C is to ___) + pictorial analogies
- series & matrix completion
inductive
- hypothesis testing
- people tend to first develop a general idea of the rule, then construct examples
- 2-4-6 task (Wason): given a bunch of numbers; have to determine the rule only by offering examples, not by asking direct questions about the rule
- confirmation bias: people try to confirm their rule is true rather than trying to test/ falsify it
- positive testing: generating numbers that are instance for hypothesis
deductive
- conditional/propositional reasoning
= if-then relations (A: antecedent, B: conclusion)
- proposition = claim that can be either true or false
- compound propositions: propositions formed by using logical connectives
a) affirming antecedent = modus ponen: A √, B √
b) denying antecedent: A x, B x
c) affirming consequence: B √, A √
d) denying consequence = modus tollens: B x, A x
deductive
- syllogistic reasoning
= categorical syllogism: 3 premises that deal with classes of entities (include quantifiers)
1&2: state premises
- premises = propositions about which arguments are made
3: conclusion based on premises
- belief bias: tendency to accept invalid conclusions that are believable rather than believe valid conclusions that are unbelievable
deductive/conditional reasoning
- Wason selection task
- must affirm modus ponens + tollens
- matching bias: tendency to select those cards explicitly mentioned in the rule
- confirmation bias: tendency to confirm own hypothesis rather than looking for other options
conditional reasoning
- 2 systems, 4 processing strategies
system 1:
- pragmatic strategy: causal processing during conversation
- semantic strategy: use background knowledge
system 2:
- inhibitory strategy: inhibit pragmatic strategy and background knowledge
- generative strategy: combine inhibitory with abstract analytic processing; BEST ONE
everyday reasoning
- implicit premises
- problems are not self-contained
- several possible answers which vary in quality
- rarely established procedures
- personal relevance
- goal-directed
deductive
- mental model theory
mental model = representation of a possible state of affairs in the world
- principle of truth: construct mental models that represent explicitly only what is true + not what is false; minimise WM load
- -> confirmation bias
- people should use falsification
limitations of mental model theory
x overestimate deductive reasoning + falsification
x processes are under-specified
x ignores individual differences
x doesn’t explain which pieces of background knowledge are used
deductive
- dual-systems theory
- Kahneman
associative system 1: - unconscious, fast - heuristic-based - parallel processing - unlimited capacity - independent of general intelligence analytical system 2: - deliberate, active, analytic - rule-based - serial processing (one problem at a time) - limited by WM - dependent on general intelligence
heuristic-analytic theory
- Evans
heuristic processes (I): task features, current goal and background knowledge to construct single hypothetical possibility analytic process (II): may or may not intervene to revise or replace mental model
principles of heuristic-analytic theory
- singularity principle: one model at a time
- relevance principle: only consider what is relevant for mental model
- satisfying principle: decide if mental model satisfies needs (analytic thinking)
approaches to study reasoning
- componential approach
= analysing a task into its component cognitive processes (mental subroutines)
- performance components = individual cognitive processes (encode –> recognise + retrieve from memory –> infer relationship –> apply relationship)
- meta-components = executive processes used in planning, monitoring
- knowledge acquisition components = used whenever we acquire new information
x common source of error: inability to use certain performance or meta-components effectively
approaches to study reasoning
- rules/heuristics approach
- reasoning = relies on special-purpose mental rules (like grammar) for inferences
hypotheses: - Cheng: people interpret problems in terms of what they are about, based on that use different schemata
- Braine: people can + do use same set of abstract rules in all situations
- Cosmides: social contract theory = especially good at tasks when content is construed in terms of social costs/benefits –> evolutionary adaptive mechanism
x common source of error: failure to interpret a problem in terms of the appropriate rules
approaches to study reasoning
- mental models approach
- reasoning = constructing models to depict premises (like mental images when you read)
- effective reasoning = assess first conclusion by attempting to construct an alternative model consistent with premises, not with the hypothesised conclusion
x common source of error: failure to construct relevant models, failure to assess the implications of all the models found, failure to construct enough models
brain parts
- broca’s area: deductive reasoning –> greater involvement of syntactical processing & working memory on deductive reasoning tasks
- left DLPFC: inductive reasoning; plan execution
- right DLPFC: plan generation
- left PFC: integrating relations (= to build mental representations that incorporate multiple propositions/ relationships)
secularisation hypothesis (PRESENTATION)
= with more widespread access to formal education & technology a focus on natural explanations will increasingly compete with & displace supernatural explanations
- natural explanation: appeal to “observable + empirically verifiable phenomena of the physical/ material world”
- supernatural explanation: appeal to phenomena that “operate outside of/ are distinct from the natural world”
explanatory co-existence
= when (1) natural + (2) supernatural explanations are generated to interpret the same events
1) natural explanation: appeal to “observable phenomena of the physical/ material world”
2) supernatural explanation: appeal to phenomena that “are distinct from the natural world”
- synthetic thinking: loose integration of natural + supernatural frameworks without in-depth consideration of how they might interact
- target-depending thinking: 2 explanations are used to account for distinct aspects of a given phenomenon; involves different kinds of causality
- integrated thinking: explanations become well-coordinated, use both explanations
results of cross-cultural perspectives on explanatory co-existence
- human origins: no explanatory co-existence
- death: target-dependent thinking (mostly natural explanations)
- illness: synthetic thinking; explanatory co-existence 77%
- -> death + illness: people often unsatisfied with only natural explanations; seek to understand why these things happen to them/their loved ones –> death + illness show more explanatory coexistence
