Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:17:05.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Is the second-step conditionalization unnecessary?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

In-mao Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, National Chung-Cheng University, Chia-Yi 621, Taiwan. [email protected]

Abstract

Because the addition of the conditional premise tends to increase modus ponens (MP) inferences, Oaksford & Chater argue that the additional knowledge is assimilated to world knowledge before the Ramsey test is carried out to evaluate P(q|p), so that the process of applying the Ramsey test could become indistinguishable from the process of applying the second-step conditionalization.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O. & Santamaria, C. (1999) Counterexamples and the suppression of inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 40:347–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, T. H. (2007) The mechanism of suppression effects in conditional reasoning. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, National Chung-Cheng University, Department of Psychology, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1977) Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29A:297306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St .B. T., Handley, S. J. & Over, D. E. (2003) Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 29321–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu, I.-M. (2003) Conditional reasoning and conditionalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29:694709.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu, I.-M. & Chou, T. H. (2008) A developmental analysis of conditional reasoning. Unpublished manuscript, National Chung-Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Liu, I. M., Lo, K. C. & Wu, J. T. (1996) A probabilistic interpretation of “If-Then”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A:828–44.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K. & Wilhelm, O. (2003) The meaning(s) of conditionals: Conditional probabilities, mental models and personal utilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29:680–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Over, D. E., Hadjichristidis, C., Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J. & Sloman, S. A. (2007) The probability of causal conditionals. Cognitive Psychology 54:6297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramsey, F. P. (1931/1990a) General propositions and causality. In: Philosophical papers, ed. Mellor, D. H., pp. 145–63. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taplin, J. E. (1971) Reasoning with conditional sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10:219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taplin, J. E. & Staudenmayer, H. (1973) Interpretation of abstract conditional sentences in deductive reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12:530–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z.-J. (1999) A two-component model of conditional reasoning. Unpublished Master's Thesis, National Chung-Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.Google Scholar