Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning

@article{Oaksford2009PrcisOB,
  title={Pr{\'e}cis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning},
  author={Mike Oaksford and Nick Chater},
  journal={Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
  year={2009},
  volume={32},
  pages={69 - 84}
}
Abstract According to Aristotle, humans are the rational animal. The borderline between rationality and irrationality is fundamental to many aspects of human life including the law, mental health, and language interpretation. But what is it to be rational? One answer, deeply embedded in the Western intellectual tradition since ancient Greece, is that rationality concerns reasoning according to the rules of logic – the formal theory that specifies the inferential connections that hold with… 

The uncertain reasoner: Bayes, logic, and rationality

TLDR
In Bayesian Rationality it is argued that probability theory, the calculus of uncertainty, is the right framework in which to understand everyday reasoning, and probability theory explains behavior, even on experimental tasks that have been designed to probe people's logical reasoning abilities.

Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity

TLDR
A major generalization of extant Bayesian approaches to argumentation is presented that utilizes a new class of Bayesian learning methods that are better suited to modeling dynamic and conditional inferences than standard Bayesian conditionalization.

THE EROTETIC THEORY OF REASONING: BRIDGES BETWEEN FORMAL SEMANTICS AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE*

The capacity to reason and draw inferences is central to all advanced human endeavors. Pushed to its limits, this capacity makes possible quantum physics and formal logic, as well as systematic

Rational argument, rational inference

TLDR
Using the catalogue of informal reasoning fallacies established over the centuries within the realms of philosophy, Hahn and Oaksford (2007a) recently demonstrated how Bayesian probability can provide a normative standard by which to evaluate quantitatively the strength of a wide range of everyday arguments.

On the role of deduction in reasoning from uncertain premises

TLDR
The findings are evidence for the descriptive adequacy of coherence and p-validity as computational level principles for reasoning and have implications for the interpretation of past findings on the roles of deduction and degrees of belief.

New paradigm psychology of reasoning

Oaksford and Chater (O&C) have written a book of great interest, which has advanced the new paradigm in the psychology of reasoning. As their title implies, they are Bayesians and see an essential

Intuitive and reflective responses in philosophy

Cognitive scientists have revealed systematic errors in human reasoning. There is disagreement about what these errors indicate about human rationality, but one upshot seems clear: human reasoning

Bayesian confirmation by uncertain evidence: epistemological and psychological issues

Inductive reasoning is of remarkable interest as it plays a crucial role in many human activities, including hypotheses evaluation in scientific inquiry, learning processes, prediction of future

In search for a standard of rationality

TLDR
Proposals of rationality are normative theories, to imply theories of how people ought to reason, if they seek decision outcomes, which are deemed to be correct, on the basis of some absolute standard.

Mental models and human reasoning

  • P. Johnson-Laird
  • Philosophy, Psychology
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • 2010
TLDR
On this account, reasoning is a simulation of the world fleshed out with the authors' knowledge, not a formal rearrangement of the logical skeletons of sentences.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 417 REFERENCES

Conditional Probability and the Cognitive Science of Conditional Reasoning

This paper addresses the apparent mismatch between the normative and descriptive literatures in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning. Descriptive psychological theories still regard

The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.

Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignorance, while ubiquitous in everyday argumentation, have been subject to little systematic investigation

Inductive Reasoning: Theory-Based Bayesian Models of Inductive Reasoning

Philosophers since Hume have struggled with the logical problem of induction, but children solve an even more difficult task — the practical problem of induction. Children somehow manage to learn

Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?

  • L. Cohen
  • Psychology
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • 1981
Abstract The object of this paper is to show why recent research in the psychology of deductive and probabilistic reasoning does not have "bleak implications for human rationality," as has sometimes

The probabilistic approach to human reasoning

Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm.

TLDR
It is suggested that the methods used for studying reasoning be reviewed, especially the instructional context, which necessarily defines pragmatic influences as biases.

Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality.

TLDR
The authors have proposed a family of algorithms based on a simple psychological mechanism: one-reason decision making, and found that these fast and frugal algorithms violate fundamental tenets of classical rationality: they neither look up nor integrate all information.

The Probability Heuristics Model of Syllogistic Reasoning

TLDR
PHM suggests that syllogistic reasoning performance may be determined by simple but rational informational strategies justified by probability theory rather than by logic.
...