Abstract
There has been a paradigm shift in the psychology of deductive reasoning. Many researchers no longer think it is appropriate to ask people to assume premises and decide what necessarily follows, with the results evaluated by binary extensional logic. Most every day and scientific inference is made from more or less confidently held beliefs and not assumptions, and the relevant normative standard is Bayesian probability theory. We argue that the study of “uncertain deduction” should directly ask people to assign probabilities to both premises and conclusions, and report an experiment using this method. We assess this reasoning by two Bayesian metrics: probabilistic validity and coherence according to probability theory. On both measures, participants perform above chance in conditional reasoning, but they do much better when statements are grouped as inferences, rather than evaluated in separate tasks.
Highlights
Paradigm Shift in the Psychology of Reasoning The psychology of deductive reasoning is undergoing a paradigm shift, which is the consequence of the introduction of Bayesian approaches into the field
The method of study that dominated the field for 40 years or so is the traditional binary deduction paradigm (Evans, 2002), inspired by extensional logic and intended to test whether people were capable of logical reasoning without formal training
The objective of the present study was to investigate the accuracy with which people can make probability judgments about the premises and conclusions of conditional inferences, and to test whether this accuracy, as measured by Bayesian standards, is increased by explicit conditional reasoning
Summary
Paradigm Shift in the Psychology of Reasoning The psychology of deductive reasoning is undergoing a paradigm shift, which is the consequence of the introduction of Bayesian approaches into the field (see Oaksford and Chater, 2007, 2010; Over, 2009; Manktelow et al, 2011; Elqayam and Over, 2012; Evans, 2012; Baratgin et al, 2013, 2014). We may believe that a grant application has a 50-50 chance of success, or that we will probably be happier if we take a promotion with more responsibility, or that we are unlikely to get on with the new boss we met this morning It is precisely such uncertain beliefs that we need to take into account when making decisions and solving problems in everyday life. The method of study that dominated the field for 40 years or so is the traditional binary deduction paradigm (Evans, 2002), inspired by extensional logic and intended to test whether people were capable of logical reasoning without formal training With this method, participants are given the premises of a logical argument, instructed to assume that they are true, and asked to decide whether a purported conclusion necessarily follows. Measured, logical reasoning is observed to be generally poor and subject to various cognitive biases (for recent reviews, see Evans, 2007; Manktelow, 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
