Task 4 - Reasoning Flashcards

1
Q

Inductive Reasoning

A
  • Forming generalisations (which may be probable but not certain) from examples (specific –> general)
  • Conclusion can contain new information
  • -> Inductive strength – argument has strength if it is improbable (not impossible) for the premises to be true & the conclusion to be false
    - Probable truth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Analogical reasoning

A

in which an individual tries to solve a current problem by retrieving information about a similar problem that was successfully solved in the past

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hypothesis Testing

A

2-4-6 Task (Wason)

  • people are given a bunch of numbers and they have to determine the rule only by offering examples, not by asking direct questions about the rule
  • confirmation bias – (fallacy of affirming the the consequent)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Deductive Reasoning

A

general –> specific

  • Conclusion represents info that was already implicit in the premises (no new info added)
  • Allows us to draw conclusions that are definitely valid, assuming that premises are true
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Deductive validity

A

argument valid only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false
– When premises are true and you reason according to logical principles, your conclusion cannot be wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Types of Deductive Reasoning

A
  1. Propositional

2. Syllogitic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Proposition

A

claim that can be either true or false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

compound propositions

A

more complicated propositions formed by using logical connectives

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Modus ponen

A

if A, then B and A is given then we can validly infer B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Modus tollens

A

if A then B and we know B is false we know A is as well

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Denying the antecedent

A

fallacy in which the info that the antecedent isn’t true leads to the conclusion that the consequence isn’t either

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Affirming the consequent

A

fallacy in which the consequence is thought to be true because the antecedent is said to be true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wason’s selection task

A

must affirm modus ponies and pollens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Categorical syllogism

A

3 premises that deal with classes of entities (include quantifiers)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

premises

A

propositions about which arguments are made

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

belief bias

A

tendency to accept invalid conclusions that are believable rather than believe valid conclusions that are unbelievable

17
Q

Effects of premise phrasing

– Patterns of Reasoning Performance

A
  • the way information is stated can make a reasoning task easier or harder
  • More errors when premises have negatives in them
  • Quantifiers such as “all” or “none” are easier to deal with than “some”
  • Syntactically complex statements require more processing resources that are then missing for other reasoning processes
18
Q

Alteration of premise meaning

– Patterns of Reasoning Performance

A
  • people often misinterpret premises & fail to think of all possible meanings
  • Everyday understanding of words such as some, all & if-then are so powerful that people have difficulties ignoring the fact that in reasoning tasks they’re defined slightly different
19
Q

Content effect

– Patterns of Reasoning Performance

A
  • people reasoning with exactly the same kind of premises will perform differently depending on what the premises are about (e.g. four-card task/ Wason’s selection task with drinking vs. age instead of numbers vs. letters)
  • Memory-cueing explanation – own experience lets one think of combinations
20
Q

Believability effect

– Patterns of Reasoning Performance

A
  • people are likely to judge as valid any conclusion that reinforces their initial assumption, regardless of whether the conclusion follows from the premises
21
Q

Approaches to the study of reasoning

A
  • Componential approach (Sternberg)
  • Rules / heuristics approach
  • Mental models approach (Johnson-Laird)
  • Heuristic-Analytic Theory (Dual Systems) (Evans)
22
Q

Componential approach (Sternberg)

A
  • Study reasoning by analysing a task into its component cognitive processes (mental subroutines
  • Reasoning as just another mental activity like problem solving & decision making
  • Performance components – individual cognitive processes (encode –> recognise infer relationship –> apply relationship
  • Meta-components – executive processes used in planning & monitoring (e.g. select which performance components will be used)
  • Knowledge acquisition components – used whenever we acquire new information (e.g. elective encoding, combination & comparison)
23
Q

Rules / heuristics approach

& Cheng vs Braine vs Cosmides

A

treat reasoning as a special mental process –> rely on special-purpose mental rules (like grammar) for inferences

  • —> Cheng: people interpret problems in terms of what they are about and based on that use different schemata
  • —> Braine: people can & do use the same set of abstract rules in all situations
  • —> Cosmides: Social contract theory
24
Q

Social contract theory

A

evolutionary adaptive mechanism for reasoning
- especially good at tasks when content is construed in terms of social costs & benefits

  • people have rules maximizing ability to achieve goals in social situations
    Deontic rules: easier to understand (rule more explicit)
25
Mental models approach (Johnson-Laird)
Use deductive reasoning that may be affected by real-world knowledge - -> Deductive reasoning problems requiring the construction of several mental models are harder to solve because of the increasing demands on working memory - Principle of truth – people minimise the load on working memory by tending to construct mental models that represent explicitly only what is true & not what is false - ---- Common source of error: failure to construct relevant models, failure to assess the implications of all the models found, failure to construct enough models
26
Limitations | Mental models approach (Johnson-Laird)
- Ignores individual differences & dual systems | - Doesn’t explain which pieces of background knowledge are used
27
Heuristic-Analytic Theory (Dual Systems) (Evans)
- Initially use real-world knowledge that may be affected by deductive reasoning through system 2 The theory assumes that reasoning and judgment are facilitated by the formation of epistemic mental models that are generated one at a time (singularity principle) by preconscious heuristic processes that contextualize problems in such a way as to maximize relevance to current goals (relevance principle). Analytic processes evaluate these models but tend to accept them unless there is good reason to reject them (satisficing principle) - System 1: heuristic processes (implicit) - -> Makes use of task features, goals & background knowledge to construct a single hypothetical possibility/ mental model - System 2: analytic processes (explicit)(time consuming, effortful) - -> May intervene to revise/ replace model - -> Likely when instructed to use abstract/ logical thinking, participants are highly intelligent, sufficient time available
28
Principles | Heuristic-Analytic Theory (Dual Systems) (Evans)
- Singularity principle: only a single mental is considered at any given time - Relevance principle: the most relevant mental model based on prior knowledge & current context is considered - Satisfying principle: current model is evaluated by system 2 and accepted if adequate (often leads people to accept conclusions that could be true but aren’t necessarily)
29
Limitations | Heuristic-Analytic Theory (Dual Systems) (Evans)
- Oversimplification to make a distinction between the systems as in implicit vs. explicit --> both can be both - Says they are various analytical processes but doesn’t elaborate
30
Brain
``` Prefrontal cortex (esp. left) -- plays a role in a person's ability to integrate relations (to build mental representations that that incorporate multiple propositions / relationships) - left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area!) --> deductive reasoning left dorsolateral prefrontal gyrus --> inductive reasoning ```
31
natural explanations
appeal to “observable & empirically verifiable phenomena of the physical/ material world"
32
supernatural explanations
appeal to phenomena that “operate outside of/ are distinct from the natural world"
33
supernatural explanations
appeal to phenomena that “operate outside of/ are distinct from the natural world"
34
Explanatory coexistence
when natural & supernatural explanations are generated to interpret the same events - Synthetic thinking: loose integration of natural & supernatural frameworks without in-depth consideration of how they might interact - Target-depending thinking: the 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 to interpret multiple levels of causality
35
Human origins | Results of study
no participant provided evidence of explanatory coexistence
36
Death | Results of study
mostly natural processes as reasons for death and what happens to the body after - Some target-dependent thinking – supernatural explanation for what happens after death (spirit & soul life) seen as distinct process from cause of death - Causes of death are much more observable thus more natural explanations
37
Illness | Results of study
explanatory coexistence in 77% of the cases - Synthetic thinking: generally natural explanations but also said people can get sick from their behaviour & the way they treat others but couldn’t explain how - Given greater access to info about proximate causes for illness + the influence of Christianity
38
Discussion | of the study
Death & Illness: people are often unsatisfied with natural explanations of death & illness and seek to understand why these things happen to them or their loved ones which explains why death & illness show more explanatory coexistence
39
Base rate effect
Biased through the probability that following statements could be false or true