What happened to the “new paradigm”? Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2022-01-10 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532
P. Johnson-Laird, S. Khemlani
{"title":"What happened to the “new paradigm”? Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)","authors":"P. Johnson-Laird, S. Khemlani","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (this issue) critique the \"new paradigm\" – a framework that replaces logic with probabilities – on the grounds that there existed no \"old” paradigm for it to supplant. Their position is supported by the large numbers of theories that theorists developed to explain the Wason selection task, syllogisms, and other tasks. We propose some measures to inhibit such facile theorizing, which threatens the viability of cognitive science. We show that robust results exist contrary to the new paradigm, and that it is unable to account for other results.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"54 1","pages":"409 - 415"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (this issue) critique the "new paradigm" – a framework that replaces logic with probabilities – on the grounds that there existed no "old” paradigm for it to supplant. Their position is supported by the large numbers of theories that theorists developed to explain the Wason selection task, syllogisms, and other tasks. We propose some measures to inhibit such facile theorizing, which threatens the viability of cognitive science. We show that robust results exist contrary to the new paradigm, and that it is unable to account for other results.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“新范式”怎么了?评论克瑙夫和加佐Castañeda (2023)
Knauff和Gazzo Castañeda(本期)批评了“新范式”——一个用概率取代逻辑的框架——理由是没有“旧”范式可供它取代。他们的立场得到了大量理论的支持,这些理论是理论家们用来解释沃森选择任务、三段论和其他任务的。我们提出了一些措施来抑制这种轻率的理论化,这威胁到认知科学的生存能力。我们表明存在与新范式相反的稳健结果,并且它无法解释其他结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1