Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T17:10:01.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The logic of natural sampling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

David E. Over
David E. Over
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Durham University, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham City DH1 3LE, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barbey & Sloman (B&S) relegate the logical rule of the excluded middle to a footnote. But this logical rule is necessary for natural sampling. Making the rule explicit in a logical tree can make a problem easier to solve. Examples are given of uses of the rule that are non-constructive and not reducible to a domain-specific module.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Cosmides, L. (1989) The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31:187–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: Dual process in reasoning and judgement. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Griggs, R. A. & Newstead, S. (1982) The role of problem structure in a deductive reasoning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 8:297–307.Google Scholar
Kleiter, G. D. (1994) Natural sampling: Rationality without base-rates. In: Contributions to mathematical psychology, psychometrics, and methodology, ed. Fischer, G. H. & Laming, D., pp. 375–88. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levesque, H. J. (1986) Making believers of computers. Artificial Intelligence 30:81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, D. E. & Evans, J. St. B. T. (forthcoming) Conditionals and non-constructive reasoning. In: The psychology of conditionals, ed. Oaksford, M.. Oxford University Press. [Based on talks available at London Reasoning Workshop site: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psyc/staff/academic/moaksford/londonreasoningworkshop]Google Scholar
Todd, P. M. & Gigenenzer, G. (1999) What we have learned (so far). In: Simple heuristics that make us smart, ed. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group, pp. 357–65. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (2002) The domain specificity and generality of disjunctive reasoning: Searching for a generalizable critical reasoning skill. Journal of Educational Psychology 94:197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, L. & Gigerenzer, G. (2006) Children can solve Bayesian problems: The role of representation in mental computation. Cognition 98:287–308.Google Scholar