What are fallacies good for? Representational speed-up in propositional reasoning
نویسنده
چکیده
Two experiments examine speed-up in argument pairs of various propositional forms. In the first experiment, participants were presented with pairs of conditional arguments. Some of these pairs had a form of a valid Modus Ponens (MP) inference, whereas other pairs had a form of a fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (AC). In both argument pairs, presentation of the prime led to a significant speed-up in the probe argument. In the second experiment, in addition to AC-AC and MP-MP pairs, AC-MP and MP-AC pairs were also included. Results indicated that AC primes led to a speed-up of MP probes, and MP primes led to a speed-up in AC probes. The results are discussed in relation to theories of propositional reasoning.
منابع مشابه
The Vices of Argument
What should a virtue theory of argumentation say about fallacious reasoning? If good arguments are virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness o...
متن کاملThe Semantic Modulation of Deductive Premises
Two experiments examined how the mental models of premises influence deductive reasoning. Experiment 1 showed that individuals draw different conclusions from the same information depending on whether it is expressed in conditional assertions or disjunctions. It also showed that co-reference within the premises can speed up more difficult inferences. Experiment 2 corroborated these results and ...
متن کاملCircular Arguments, Begging the Question and the Formalization of Argument Strength
Recently Oaksford and Hahn (2004) proposed a Bayesian reconstruction of a classic argumentation fallacy Locke’s ‘argument from ignorance.’ Here this account is extended to what is probably the most well-known of all argumentation fallacies: circular reasoning or ‘begging the question’. A Bayesian analysis is shown to clarify when and where circular reasoning is good or bad, and how seeming para...
متن کاملRepresentational Succinctness of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
Representational succinctness is the ability of a formalism with modeltheoretic semantics to express interpretation sets in a space-efficient way. In this paper we analyse the representational succinctness of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) under the two-valued model semantics. We also compare ADFs’ succinctness to related formalisms like propositional logic, argumentation frameworks (un...
متن کاملA causal framework for integrating learning and reasoning
Can the phenomena of associative learning be replaced wholesale by a propositional reasoning system? Mitchell et al. make a strong case against an automatic, unconscious, and encapsulated associative system. However, their propositional account fails to distinguish inferences based on actions from those based on observation. Causal Bayes networks remedy this shortcoming, and also provide an ove...
متن کامل