publication . Article . 2018

Paradigms, possibilities and probabilities: Comment on Hinterecker et al. (2016)

Oaksford, Michael; Over, D.; Cruz de echeverria loebell, Nicole;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Jan 2018
  • Publisher: American Psychological Association
  • Country: United Kingdom
Hinterecker et al. (2016) compared the adequacy of the probabilistic new paradigm in reasoning with the recent revision of mental models theory (MMT) for explaining a novel class of inferences containing the modal term “possibly”. For example, the door is closed or the window is open or both, therefore, possibly the door is closed and the window is open (A or B or both, therefore, possibly(A & B)). They concluded that their results support MMT. In this comment, it is argued that Hinterecker et al. (2016) have not adequately characterised the theory of probabilistic validity (p-validity) on which the new paradigm depends. It is unclear how p-validity can be appli...
free text keywords: psyc
Related Organizations
55 references, page 1 of 4

Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 36, 181-253

Clark, K. L. (1978). Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and databases (pp. 293- 322). New York: Plenum Press.

Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317-370. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00009092

Cruz, N., Baratgin, J., Oaksford, M., & Over, D. E. (2015). Bayesian reasoning with ifs and ands and ors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-9.

Cruz, N., Over, D. E., Oaksford, M., & Baratgin, J. (2016). Centering and the meaning of conditionals. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1104-1109). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. [OpenAIRE]

Cruz, N., Over, D. E., & Oaksford, M. (2017). The elusive oddness of or-introduction. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 663-668). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Where do hypotheses come from? Cognitive Psychology, 96, 1-25.

Demey, L., Kooi, B., & Sack, J. (2017). Logic and probability. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition). Downloaded from <>.

Douven, I., & Verbrugge, S. (2010). The Adams family. Cognition, 117, 302-318. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.015

Doya, K., Ishii, S., Pouget, A., & Rao, P. N. (2006). The Bayesian brain. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235-329. [OpenAIRE]

Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St.B. T. (2011). Subtracting 'ought' from 'is': Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 233-248. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1100001X [OpenAIRE]

Elqayam, S., & Over, D. E. (2013). New paradigm psychology of reasoning: An introduction to the special issue edited by S. Elqayam, J.F. Bonnefon, & D. E. Over. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 249-265. [OpenAIRE]

Evans, J. St.B. T., Handley, S.H., & Over, D.E. (2003). Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 29, 321-355.

Evans, J. St.B. T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525134.001.0001

55 references, page 1 of 4
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue