Human reasoning with imprecise probabilities: Modus ponens and Denying the antecedent (original) (raw)
Related papers
Towards a mental probability logic
Psychologica Belgica, 2005
We propose probability logic as an appropriate standard of reference for evaluating human inferences. Probability logical accounts of nonmonotonic reasoning with system p, and conditional syllogisms (modus ponens, etc.) are explored. Furthermore, we present categorical syllogisms with intermediate quantifiers, like the "most . . . " quantifier. While most of the paper is theoretical and intended to stimulate psychological studies, we summarize our empirical studies on human nonmonotonic reasoning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 2003
- proffered a Bayesian model in which conditional inferences are a direct function of conditional probabilities. In the current article, the authors first considered this model regarding the processing of negatives in conditional reasoning. Its predictions were evaluated against a large-scale meta-analysis (W. J. Schroyens, W. . This evaluation shows that the model is flawed: The relative size of the negative effects does not match predictions. Next, the authors evaluated the model in relation to inferences about affirmative conditionals, again considering the results of a meta-analysis (W. J. Schroyens, W. . The conditional probability model is countered by the data reported in literature; a mental models based model produces a better fit. The authors conclude that a purely probabilistic model is deficient and incomplete and cannot do without algorithmic processing assumptions if it is to advance toward a descriptively adequate psychological theory.
Framing human inference by coherence based probability logic
Journal of Applied Logic, 2009
We take coherence based probability logic as the basic reference theory to model human deductive reasoning. The conditional and probabilistic argument forms are explored. We give a brief overview of recent developments of combining logic and probability in psychology. A study on conditional inferences illustrates our approach. First steps towards a process model of conditional inferences conclude the paper.
Human Nonmonotonic Reasoning The Coherence of Probabilistic Inferences
Nonmonotonic reasoning is often claimed to mimic human common sense reasoning. Only a few studies, though, investigated this claim empirically. In the present paper four psychological experiments are reported, that investigate three rules of system p, namely the and, the left logical equivalence, and the or rule. The actual inferences of the subjects are compared with the coherent normative upper and lower probability bounds derived from a non-infinitesimal probability semantics of system p.
Experiments on nonmonotonic reasoning. The coherence of human probability judgments
Nonmonotonic reasoning is often claimed to mimic human common sense reasoning. Only a few studies, though, investigated this claim empirically. In the present paper four psychological experiments are reported, that investigate three rules of system p, namely the and, the left logical equivalence, and the or rule. The actual inferences of the subjects are compared with the coherent normative upper and lower probability bounds derived from a non-infinitesimal probability semantics of system p.
The psychology of inferring conditionals from disjunctions: A probabilistic study
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2012
There is a new probabilistic paradigm in the psychology of reasoning that is, in part, based on results showing that people judge the probability of the natural language conditional, if A then B, P(if A then B), to be the conditional probability, P(B | A). We apply this new approach to the study of a very common inference form in ordinary reasoning: inferring the conditional if not-A then B from the disjunction A or B. We show how this inference can be strong, with P(if not-A then B) ''close to'' P(A or B), when A or B is non-constructively justified. When A or B is constructively justified, the inference can be very weak. We also define suitable measures of ''closeness'' and ''constructivity'', by providing a probabilistic analysis of these notions.
Uncertainty and the suppression of inferences
Thinking & Reasoning, 2005
The explanation of the suppression of Modus Ponens inferences within the framework of linguistic pragmatics and of plausible reasoning (i. e. , deduction from uncertain premises) is defended. First, this approach is expounded, and then it is shown that the results of the first experiment of Byrne, Espino and Santamaría (1999) support the uncertainty explanation but fail to support their counterexample explanation. Second, two experiments are presented. In the first one, aimed to refute one objection regarding the conclusions observed, the additional conditional premise (if N, C) was replaced with a statement of uncertainty (it is not certain that N); the answers produced by the participants remained qualitatively and quantitatively similar in both conditions. In the second experiment, a fine-grained analysis of the responses and justifications to an evaluation task was performed. The results of both experiments strongly supported the uncertainty explanation.
Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2000
A probabilistic computational level model of conditional inference is proposed that can explain polarity biases in conditional inference (e.g., J. St. B. T. Evans, 1993). These biases are observed when J. St. B. T. Evans's (1972) negations paradigm is used in the conditional inference task. The model assumes that negations define higher probability categories than their affirmative counterparts (M. Oaksford & K. Stenning, 1992); for example, P(not-dog) > P(dog). This identification suggests that polarity biases are really a rational effect of high-probability categories. Three experiments revealed that, consistent with this probabilistic account, when high-probability categories are used instead of negations, a high-probability conclusion effect is observed. The relationships between the probabilistic model and other phenomena and other theories in conditional reasoning are discussed.
Journal of Pragmatics, 2011
According to probabilistic theories of reasoning in psychology, people's degree of belief in an indicative conditional 'if A, then B' is given by the conditional probability, P (B|A). The role of language pragmatics is relatively unexplored in the new probabilistic paradigm. We investigated how consequent relevance affects participants' degrees of belief in conditionals about a randomly chosen card. The set of events referred to by the consequent was either a strict superset or a strict subset of the set of events referred to by the antecedent. We manipulated whether the superset was expressed using a disjunction or a hypernym. We also manipulated the source of the dependency, whether in long-term memory or in the stimulus. For subset-consequent conditionals, patterns of responses were mostly conditional probability followed by conjunction. For superset-consequent conditionals, conditional probability responses were most common for hypernym dependencies and least common for disjunction dependencies, which were replaced with responses indicating inferred consequent irrelevance. Conditional probability responses were also more common for knowledge-based than stimulus-based dependencies. We suggest extensions to probabilistic theories of reasoning to account for the results.
The Probability of Conditionals: The Psychological Evidence
Mind and Language, 2003
The two main psychological theories of the ordinary conditional were designed to account for inferences made from assumptions, but few premises in everyday life can be simply assumed true. Useful premises usually have a probability that is less than certainty. But what is the probability of the ordinary conditional and how is it determined? We argue that people use a two stage Ramsey test that we specify to make probability judgements about indicative conditionals in natural language, and we describe experiments that support this conclusion. Our account can explain why most people give the conditional probability as the probability of the conditional, but also why some give the conjunctive probability. We discuss how our psychological work is related to the analysis of ordinary conditionals in philosophical logic.