Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Reasoning
What is reasoning?
The world typically does not give us complete
information
Reasoning is the set of processes that
enables us to go beyond the information
given
or at the seats
If you see Mary on the corner of Fry and Hickory, you expect
to see Bill as well.
If you do not see either of them at the corner, you expect to
see them at the seats when you get to the stadium.
The agreement has a logical form
(Bill AND Mary) will be located at corner OR
(Bill AND Mary) will be located at seats
AND and OR are logical operators
They have truth tables
Conditional Reasoning
Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens
Conditional Reasoning
Each card has a letter on one side, and a
Conditional Reasoning
Who do you have to check?
If you have a beer, then you must be 21 or
older?
Conditional Reasoning
These cases are logically the same
Valid Arguments: If premises are true, conclusion
must be true
Affirming the Antecedent
P Q
P
Q (Modus Ponens)
P Q
NOT Q
NOT P (Modus Tollens)
Conditional Reasoning
Invalid Arguments: Conclusion need not be true, even if
PQ
NOT P
NOT Q
Logical thinking
Pure logic says that we should be able to reason about any
content
The Ps and Qs in the argument could be anything
However, we are more likely to accept an argument when the
conclusion is true (in the real world) whether it is valid or not
All professors are educators
Some educators are smart
Some professors are smart
This conclusion may be true
Logical thinking
Social schemas are easy to reason about and may be context dependent rather
that
E.g. Permission: Some precondition must be filled in order to carry out some
action
Truth cannot be determined with certainty, thus we must generally reason about
content
We will look at how people reason about content later
Inductive Reasoning
Lucis presentation!
Abductive Reasoning
Say what?
Another form of reasoning is provided by the philosopher C.S.
Peirce
It essentially provides a means for coming up with rules based
on new instances experiences
One way you might think of it is coming up with hypotheses
based on new findings (whereas deduction would deal with
outlining the consequences of a hypothesis and induction in
testing the hypothesis)
Observation: the grass is wet
Explanation: it rained
The explanation is consistent with the domain of the problem
Abuduction
Deduction
Abuduction
Induction
Interchange the conclusion (the Result) with the major
premise (the Rule). Argument becomes:
All balls in this particular random sample are red
All balls in this particular random sample are taken
Abuduction
Abduction
New argument: Interchange the conclusion (the Result) with the
minor premise (the Case)
Argument becomes: All balls in this urn are red
All balls in this particular random sample are red
Therefore, All balls in this particular random sample are taken
Scientific reasoning
Scientific reasoning
Combination of reasoning abilities
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Testing
Deductive side (conditional reasoning)
Hypothesis Testing
If a person is an American,
If a person is an American,
hypothesis testing we
undertake, and is logically
incorrect
Hypothesis testing
Induction
Take a sample, calculate a statistic
Generalize to the population
Problem: often no real reason to believe the
Hypothesis testing
People tend to have a confirmation bias
We seek confirming evidence
Scientists also show a confirmation bias
Hypothesis testing
Confirmation bias
Many people initially assume the rule is
Sequences increasing by 2
Hypothesis testing
Scientists ignore base rates (prior research)
Bayes theorem allows for incorporating prior
Not p(H|D)
But p(D|H)
Importance of Content
Analogy and Similarity
How do we use past experience?
What are analogies?
Structural alignment
Similarity
What to do...
How do you decide what to buy?
Contrast model
Tversky (1977)
Had people list features of concepts
Had other people rate the similarity of concepts
Compared the feature lists
Similarity increases with common features, similarity
Analogy
The Atom
cause(
greater(charge(nucleus)
charge(electron)),
revolve(electron,nucleus))
cause(
greater(mass(Sun)
mass(planet)),
revolve(planet,Sun))
The nucleus is not hot, the planets are not small etc.
Structure mapping
Structured
representations
Relations connect the
objects
Items are placed in
correspondence when
they play the same role
in a matching relational
system
Analogical Inference
Can make inferences
Types of similarity
pairs
things work
Causal Models
Causal models allow us to explain and understand
Intuitive Theories
Nave physics
What would happen to a ball shot through this
pipe?
People often respond by assuming curvilinear
momentum
Intuitive Theories
Why do we err?
Our nave physics matches our
observations
Keil
People believe they understand more than they do
Asked college students about devices
Toilet, Car ignition, Bicycle derailleur
Said they understood devices, but could not actually explain
them
Why does this happen?
When we know how to use an object and it is familiar, we
believe we know how it works
Summary
Mental models
Logical mental models
Analogical mental models
Causal mental models
Nave physics
Scientific reasoning
People generate pretty good tests
Often show a confirmation bias