Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:15:07.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

You can't have your hypothesis and test it: The importance of utilities in theories of reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Fenna H. Poletiek
Fenna H. Poletiek
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mercier and Sperber's (M&S's) theory of reasoning cannot predict reasoning in the absence of an argumentative context. Applying the theory to hypothesis testing behavior, I propose that hypothesis testing is often motivated by determining the true inference and that reasoning models should account for utilities (affected by various motives, including the wish to convince) of reasoning outcomes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 87 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Cowley, M. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2005) When falsification is the only path to truth. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L. & Buchiarelli, M., pp. 512–17. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klayman, J. & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review 94(2):211–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. (1996) Paradoxes of falsification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 49(2):447–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. (2001) Hypothesis-testing behavior. Essays in Cognitive Psychology Series. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. & Berndsen, M. (2000) Hypothesis testing as risk behavior with regard to beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13:107–23.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 12(3):129–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherick, N. E. (1962) Eliminative and enumerative behavior in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 14:246–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar