Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Deductive reasoning
|
A process of reasoning that involves sequences of statements (premises) called syllogisms to reach a logically certain conclusion.
- Making definite conclusions |
|
|
Inductive Reasoning
|
A process of reasoning that involves arriving at conclusion about something that is probably true based on previous cases of similar situations.
- Making probable conclusions, that do not always follow initial premises. |
|
|
Categorical Reasoning
|
When premises and conclusions describe the relationship between two categories by using statements that start with all, no or some.
|
|
|
Valid Syllogism
|
A syllogism where the conclusion follows logically from two premises.
|
|
|
Are all valid syllogism true, why?
|
No, because the two premises may not be true which can make the conclusion then untrue.
|
|
|
What does validity depend on?
|
The form of the syllogism
|
|
|
What does the truth depend on?
|
The content of the premises.
|
|
|
Conditional Syllogism
|
When a statement has two premises and a conclusion, but the first premise in the statement has the form "if...then."
|
|
|
What is Modus Pones, describe an example? Is the conclusion drawn from this valid or invalid?
|
Affirming the antecedent (p therefore q)
When the antecedent p (if I study) is affirmed by the second premise (I studied). The conclusion of the syllogism (I'll get a good grade) would be valid. |
|
|
What is Modus Tollens, describe an example? Is the conclusion drawn from this valid or invalid?
|
Denying the consequent (not q therefore not p)
When the consequent q (I'll get a good grade) is denied by the second premise (I didn't get a good grade). The conclusion from this syllogism (I didn't study) would be valid. |
|
|
What is Affirming the consequent, describe an example? Is the conclusion drawn from this valid or invalid?
|
When the consequent q is confirmed in the second premise (I got a good grade). The conclusion of this premise (I studied) is invalid based on the previous set of statements b/c despite the preceding information the rule doesn't say you still cant get a good grade if you don't study.
|
|
|
What is Denying the antecedent, describe an example? Is the conclusion drawn from this valid or invalid?
|
When the antecedent p is denied by the first premise (I didn't study). The conclusion in this syllogism ( didn't get a good grade is invalid based on the previous statements because the conditional syllogism does not discuss this. It is however a possibility.
|
|
|
What is Wason's four card problem? What should you do to correctly solve this problem?
|
Four cards are presented to a participant and the job is to test the rule: If there is a vowel on one side, then there is an even number on the other side.
To correctly test the rule the cards with the letter E and the number 7 must be turned over to test the validity of the rule following the valid statements of modus pones and tollens. |
|
|
The falsification principle
|
To test a rule it is necessary to look for situations that falsify the rule.
|
|
|
What can variations of the four card problem indicate about the roles of concreteness? Give a source?
|
As concreteness of a problem increases (the realistic qualities) so does the likelihood that participants will correctly test the rule.
This is demonstrated by the example problem "if a person is drinking beer, they must be over the age of 19," where 73% of participants flipped the correct cards. |
|
|
What can variations of the four card problem tell us about the roles of knowledge of regulations? Give a source?
|
The beer and drinking framed card problem demonstrates that having prior real world knowledge of the regulations on what age it is legal to drink alcohol enables participants to realize the 16 year old card (modus tollens) needed to be turned over in addition to the beer card.
|
|
|
A pragmatic reasoning schema
|
A way of thinking about cause and effect in the world that is learned as a part of experiencing everyday life.
|
|
|
What is a permission schema and what can variations of the four card problem tell us about the role of them? Give a source?
|
If a person satisfies condition A, then he or she gets to carry out action B. They have been shown to aid in valid decision making. Demonstrated in the four card problem involving two groups given different examples that either activated a permission schema or did not. The problem involved depicting participants as immigration officers that were to try to stop people entering a country w/o the disease cholera ticked on the other side of their form. Those who were given a more descriptive reason for doing what they were doing (ie activated permission schema) were better at identifying which cards to flip.
|
|
|
How has the Evolutionary perspective been incorporated into the four card problem?
|
Through the social exchange theory that states an important aspect of human behaviour is to cooperate with a mutual beneficence and partial obedience to social rules. Problems arise when someone is cheated therefore we developed systems/rules to prevent us from being cheated.
|
|
|
What has the Wason four-card problem taught us about conditional reasoning? 2 points
|
That the context within which conditional reasoning occurs makes a noticeable difference on our abilities to reason well. We have also learned that familiarity is not always necessary for conditional reasoning (as in the tattoo problem). Maybe because they were combating possible cheating?
|
|
|
What strengthens an inductive argument?
|
- Representativeness of observations (is it a good example to represent the group
- Number of observations - The quality of the evidence (scientific descriptions?) |
|
|
How is inductive reasoning used in everyday experience?
|
We use inductive reasoning anytime we make predictions based on what has happened in our observations of the past. ex I should leave earlier than the schedule tells me to catch the bus b/c it takes longer to get to the stop than it say and I will miss the bus if I leave when it says.
|
|
|
Availability Heuristic
|
Events that are more likely easily remembered are judged as being more probable than events than are less memorable. Plane crash vs car crash, which form of transportation is actually safer.
|
|
|
What experiment demonstrates the availability heuristic?
|
An experiment my Stewart McKlevie (1997) demonstrated that when given two list of words, one list with slightly less males than females but with names that were famous and another list with slightly less females than males but they were famous females, participants remembered better the famous names and therefore claimed that there were more of that sex in the list when in fact it was reversed.
|
|
|
Illusory correlation
|
When a correlation between two events appears to exist, but in reality there is non or it is weaker than originally assumed.
|
|
|
How can the illusory correlation lead to errors in reasoning?
|
Someone may assume something about an individual or event based off of false premises they have created.
These false premises are often found in the form of stereotypes. An oversimplified assumption about a group or class of people based off of a few occasions with a few individuals from the group. |
|
|
What can having a stereotype do to someones reasoning process?
|
It can often cause people to have selective attention for things that reinforce their beliefs (confirmation bias) which makes an illusory correlation stronger.
|
|
|
Representativeness Heuristic
|
The probability that A is a member of class B can be determined by how well the properties of A resemble the properties of class B.
|
|
|
Base rate?
|
The relative proportion of different classes in the populations. How likely is the event to actually occur.
|
|
|
How can failure to take into account the base rates cause errors in reasoning? Describe an experiment that demonstrates this?
|
Failure to take into account the base rate often occurs when their are descriptives of an item or individual that could possibly put someone in another group. These descriptives can be focussed on too heavily as demonstrated by Tversky using a description of a male from the general population in 1974 which included the facts that robert wore reading glasses and liked to read. When asked if he was a farmer or librarian more people answered librarian even thought based on the time and general statistics it is much more probable that Robert was a farmer. This happened because people ignored the base rate and paid attention to descriptives too much.
|
|
|
Law of large numbers
|
The larger the number of individuals that are drawn from a population the more reflective results from that group will be of the general population.
|
|
|
How can failure to take into account the law of large numbers cause errors in reasoning? Describe an experiment that demonstrates this?
|
When people do not take into account the law of large numbers they are more at fault to assuming that representatives hold for small groups even though we know it is larger groups that better represent a population.This leads to errors like assuming that both a large and small group will be equal in their representation, which is incorrect.
|
|
|
Confirmation bias
|
Our tendency to see out information that confirms our current hypothesis and to overlook disconfirming evidence.
|
|
|
What can Lord's experiment on views about capital punishment tell us?
|
That upon receiving confirming or disconfirming evidence to our beliefs, we tend to see evidence as convincing when it supports our beliefs or unconvincing when it doesn't.
|
