Cog- Thinking and reasoning
- Created by: Amy
- Created on: 20-12-21 19:31
View mindmap
- Thinking and reasoning: Logical reasoning
- Johnson- Laird and Byrne (1991)- deductive reasoning was central to activities such as formulating plans, determining the consequences of hypothesis, to interpret and formulate instructions, to pursue arguments and negotiations
- Inductive reasoning- increases semantic info (rely on own extra/world knowledge), possible/plausable explanations but aren't necessarily true
- Deductive reasoning- conclusions are necessarily true, deduction is always truth preserving , requires only the info presented in the premises (no use of additional knowledge), making the implicit become explicit
- Categorical syllogisms
- Consists of two premises and a conclusion and uses quantity terms like all, some, none etc
- eg all artists are beekeepers, all beekeepers are chemists therefore all artists are chemists
- Valid argument form- it is truth preserving so if the premises are true then the conclusion will be true
- Consists of two premises and a conclusion and uses quantity terms like all, some, none etc
- Truth vs Validity
- Validity- the form of the argument rather than the content of it
- Belief bias
- We are seduced by the believability of conclusions rather than their validity
- Symbols are used in place of sentences, typically p & q
- Data from Evans et al (1983) shows clear evidence of belief bias
- Propositional reasoning
- A formal system of logic, symbols are used in place
- Conclusions are reached via the application of 'logical operators' (eg if, then) or connectives and the rule of logic
- Conditional reasoning- an aspect of propositional reasoning
- Reasoning about the operator 'if, then'
- The meaning of words used in logic is often different from their meaning in natural, everyday usage
- Things are ever true or false in propositional logic- there is no in-between, may have some effect on how people reason and why they make errors
- Inferences in conditional reasoning- 4 traditionally associated with conditionals
- 1. Modus ponens- valid inference form, its truth preserving and will always yield true conclusions from true premises, If p then q therefore q
- 2. Modus tollens- valid form, truth preserving, If p then q, not q therefore not p
- longer so more likely has errors
- 3. Affirmation of the consequent (AC)- invalid as it will jot necessarily always give true conclusions from true premises, If p then q, q, therefor p
- 4. Denial of the antecedent (DA)- invalid, we can use truth tables from logic to assess the validity of these arguments
- If p then q, not p therefore not q
- Reasonable but not in formal logic
- Boole (1854)- the laws of logic are the laws of thoughts
- When assessing human performance we can use: generation tasks, evaluation tasks, some form of logical problems
- Studies have looked at the rate ps generate/ endorse the valid and invalid conclusions
- Marcus and Rips (1979)- Modus ponens drawn almost universally, modus tollens less frequently, AC and DA sometimes
- Evans et al (1993) reviewed many studies and reported similar rates
- Marcus and Rips (1979)- Modus ponens drawn almost universally, modus tollens less frequently, AC and DA sometimes
- Studies have looked at the rate ps generate/ endorse the valid and invalid conclusions
- Theories of reasoning
- Theory must account for pattern of performance and account for factors: competence, errors (biases), number of studies show an effect of content
- Abstract Rule theories (Braine & O'Brien 1991 and Rips 1994 and Braine 1994)
- People are rational- we have some rules of logic or specialised processes for logical thinking
- Numerous versions of mental logic, not all the same (share some basic principles)
- People make mistakes because: we misunderstand/ misinterpret the task (Henle 1962) or we lack the necessary rules of logic resource limitations
- Braine's abstract rule theory
- Comprehension component- must be converted to a mental representation that can be held in working memory
- Incompatibility rules- check for inconsistent/ contradictory reasoning (such as concluding both p and not p)
- Application of rule schemas
Comments
No comments have yet been made