Conditionals and testimony

被引:8
作者
Collins, Peter J. [1 ,2 ]
Krzyanowska, Karolina [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Hartmann, Stephan [2 ]
Wheeler, Gregory [5 ]
Hahn, Ulrike [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Birkbeck Univ London, Dept Psychol Sci, London, England
[2] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Munich Ctr Math Philosophy, Munich, Germany
[3] Univ Amsterdam, Inst Log Language & Computat, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Univ St Andrews, Arche Res Ctr, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland
[5] Frankfurt Sch Finance & Management, Frankfurt, Germany
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Conditionals; Testimony; Belief updating; Reasoning; Bayesian modeling; PROBABILITY; INFERENCE; THINKING; ARGUMENTATION; UNCERTAINTY; INFORMATION; RELIABILITY; SIMULATION; PRAGMATICS; TRUTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101329
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Conditionals and conditional reasoning have been a long-standing focus of research across a number of disciplines, ranging from psychology through linguistics to philosophy. But almost no work has concerned itself with the question of how hearing or reading a conditional changes our beliefs. Given that we acquire much-perhaps most-of what we believe through the testimony of others, the simple matter of acquiring conditionals via others' assertion of a conditional seems integral to any full understanding of the conditional and conditional reasoning. In this paper we detail a number of basic intuitions about how beliefs might change in response to a conditional being uttered, and show how these are backed by behavioral data. In the remainder of the paper, we then show how these deceptively simple phenomena pose a fundamental challenge to present theoretical accounts of the conditional and conditional reasoning - a challenge which no account presently fully meets.
引用
收藏
页数:33
相关论文
共 147 条
[61]   Learning Conditional Information by Jeffrey Imaging on Stalnaker Conditionals [J].
Guenther, Mario .
JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC, 2018, 47 (05) :851-876
[62]  
Hahn U., 2009, INFORMAL LOG, V29, P337, DOI [DOI 10.22329/IL.V29I4.2903, 10.22329/il. v29i4.2903]
[63]  
Hahn U., 2012, BAYESIAN ARGUMENTATI, P15, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0
[64]   The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies [J].
Hahn, Ulrike ;
Oaksford, Mike .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, 114 (03) :704-732
[65]   Public Reception of Climate Science: Coherence, Reliability, and Independence [J].
Hahn, Ulrike ;
Harris, Adam J. L. ;
Corner, Adam .
TOPICS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2016, 8 (01) :180-195
[66]   Reasoning as we read: Establishing the probability of causal conditionals [J].
Haigh, Matthew ;
Stewart, Andrew J. ;
Connell, Louise .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2013, 41 (01) :152-158
[67]  
Harper W.L., 1976, Foundations and [49], P117
[68]   The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach [J].
Harris, Adam J. L. ;
Hahn, Ulrike ;
Madsen, Jens K. ;
Hsu, Anne S. .
COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2016, 40 (06) :1496-1533
[69]   A New Garber-Style Solution to the Problem of Old Evidence [J].
Hartmann, Stephan ;
Fitelson, Branden .
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2015, 82 (04) :712-717
[70]   THE SOCIAL-CONTEXT OF REASONING - CONVERSATIONAL INFERENCE AND RATIONAL JUDGMENT [J].
HILTON, DJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1995, 118 (02) :248-271