Problem 4 - reasoning Flashcards
Deductive reasoning
- assumptions from general to specific
- conclusions can add new information
- > conclusions have deductive validity: if and only if it is impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false
Dual-systems Theory
1) heuristic system, autonomous, does not require working memory, fast, high capacity
2) analytic system, deliberative, requires working memory, slow, analytic, resource demanding, able to operate only serially
Problems dual systems theory
- boarder between different processes isn’t clear
- system 2 is not well explained
Broca’s area
-deductive reasoning
Left dorsolateral prefrontal gyrus
-inductive reasoning
Left prefrontal cortex
-integrating relations
Mental model theory -key word
-constructing different models in your mind depending on the problem
- principle of truth -> construct models concerning what is true but not what is false
- > many errors occur because of that
- constructing involves working memory
-searching for counter-examples -> if counter examples are not found, your original model seems fine
belief bias?
Limitations of mental model theory
- not a real model because it is so vague
- assumes that people try to falsify their models
syllogistic reasoning
- categorical syllogism
- 2 premises
- 1 conclusion
example:
1) all humans are mortal
2) socrates is a human
3) socrates is mortal
wason selection task
- logic puzzle for study of deductive reasoning
- 4 cards lying on table
- each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other
- participant is told that a rule applies to cards (e.g. if a card has a vowel on one side it must have an even number on the other)
- task is to select only those cards that would need to be turned over to decide whether or not the rule is followed
- > need to select a card that would fail to obey the rule
modus tollens
- TOLLWUT-> BÖSE-> nein und nein
- When we have ‘If A then B ‘ and we know B is false, A is also false
inductive reasoning
- goes from specific to general
- new information is added
- conclusions represent information that was already implicit in the premises
- inductive strength: an argument has inductive strength if it is improbable (but not impossible) for premises to be true and the conclusion false
2 kinds of deductive reasoning
- propositional reasoning
- syllogistic reasoning
propositional reasoning
- drawing conclusions from premises that are in the form of propositions (Aussagen) that are either true of false (i.e. today is Friday)
- simple propositions can be hooked together into more complicated (compound) ones by using certain logical connectives (and,not, if-then)
fallacies (2)
rules that produce conclusions that are false even if the premises are true
- > affirming the consequent
- > denying the antecedent
affirmation (Beteuerung) of the consequences
-when the consequence is said to be true, the antecedent is also assumed to be true as well
- if the bell is ringing, then the dog is barking
- > the dog is barking, therefore the bell is ringing
- > FALSE! FALLACY!
denial of antecedent (Vordersatz)
- when the antecedent is said not to be true, the conclusion is also assumed not to be true
- if the bell is ringing, then the dog is barking
- the bell is not ringing, therefore the dog is not barking
- > FALSE! FALLACY
types of inductive reasoning (2)
- analogical reasoning
- hypothesis testing
analogical reasoning
- A is to B as C is to…
- complexity depends on multiple factors, like relationship between two terms, how many possibilities there are for blank term , how easy these are called to mind…
- inductive reasoning
Hypothesis testing
example: you are given 3 numbers (2,4,6) and you have to find out which rule this triplet follows
- cannot ask questions
- one has to offer own examples and get feedback on it
- most people fail to test their rule by giving counterexamples
confirmation bias
- participants want their rule to be confirmed rather than trying to test (and falsify) it
- tendency to look only for information that supports your existing beliefs
belief bias
- thinking something is valid cause it seems more believable
- belief bias will be stronger when only heuristic processes are used than when analytic ones are also used
which bias plays a role in the wason selection task?
- matching bias
- > tendency for participants to select cards matching items named in the rule regardless of whether the matched items are correct /relevant
modus ponens
PRIMA
- > yes and yes
- if a then b
- > given a we can validly infer b
componential approach - sternberg
-reasoning by analyzing a task into its components cognitive processes (mental subroutines)
3 components of componential approach - sternberg
1) performance components = individual cognitive processes
2) metacomponents =executive processes used in planning and monitoring of a task
3) knowledge acquisition components= used whenever we acquire new information
problem componential approach
inability to use certain components effectively
rules/heuristic approach
- treat reasoning as a special mental process
- rely on special-purpose mental rules (like grammer) for inferences
Cheng - rules/heuristic approach
-people interpret problems in terms of what they are about and based on that use different schemata
Braine - rules/heuristic approach
-people can and do use the same set of abstract rules in all situations
Cosmides - rules/heuristic approach
-social contract theory:
evolutionary adaptive mechanisms for reasoning -> especially good at tasks when content is constructed in terms of social costs and benefits
heuristic- analytic theory - Evans
system 1: heuristic , independent from general intelligence
system 2 : analytic , dependent on general intelligence
reasoning based on 3 principles - heuristic analytic theory
1) singularity principle -> single mental model considered
2) relevance principle -> most relevant is considered
3) satisfying principle
brain correlates
?
