Mind & Society

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 43–50 | Cite as

Cheating neuropsychologists: A study of cognitive processes involved in scientific anomalies resolution

  • Luca Pezzullo
Articles
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

This research was carried out to explore some of the cognitive processes involved in scientific anomalies resolution. 40 subjects with a good neuropsychology expertise were asked to explain two (invented) anomalous neuropsychological cases. The subjects' efforts to give a meaningful structure to the data were recorded, and the resulting “reasoning blocks” were analysed to extract and compute the inferential (deductive, inductive and abductive) and analogical processes used. The processes were intercorrelated to experimentally verify the co-occurrence of different forms of logical thinking. Statistical analysis point out the relevance of abductive inferences, the possible presence of an “inferential-style switching process”, the high number of “external” analogies used, the “cognitive closeness” manifested by expert reasoners.

Keywords

scientific reasoning inferential processes analogy anomalies resolution abductive reasoning psychology of science experimental anomalies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Chinn, C.A. & Brewer, W.F. (1993) The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction,Review of Educational Research, 63, pp. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Darden, L. (1992) Strategies for anomalies resolution, in R. Giere (Ed.),Cognitive models of science (Minneapolis MN, University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
  3. Denes, G. & Pizzamiglio, L. (1990)Manuale di neuropsicologia (Bologna, Zanichelli).Google Scholar
  4. Dunbar, K. (1997) How scientists think: on-line creativity and conceptual change in science, in T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith & J. Viad (Eds),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (Washington D.C., APA Press).Google Scholar
  5. Holyoak, K.J. & Thagard, P. (1995)Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought (Cambridge MA, MIT Press).Google Scholar
  6. Josephson, J. & Josephson, S.G. (1994)Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Keinath, A. & Krems, J.F. (1998) The influence of anomalous data on solving human abductive tasks, paper presented atModel Based Reasoning '98 Conference, 17–19 December 1998, Pavia, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. McCarty, R.A. & Warrington, E.K. (1992)Neuropsicologia cognitiva (Milano, Raffaello Cortina Editore).Google Scholar
  9. Mynatt, C.R., Doherty, M.E. & Tweney, R.D. (1977) Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference,Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, pp. 89–95.Google Scholar
  10. Mynatt, C.R., Doherty, M.E. & Tweney, R.D. (1978) Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation in a simulated research environment,Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, pp. 395–406.Google Scholar
  11. Roncato, S. & Zucco, G. (1993)I labirinti della memoria (Bologna, Il Mulino).Google Scholar
  12. Sacks, O. (1997) Scotoma, in R.B. Silvers (Ed.),Hidden histories of sciences (London, Granta Books).Google Scholar
  13. Tweney, R.D., Doherty, M.E. & Mynatt, C.R. (1981)On scientific thinking (New York, Columbia University Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rosenberg & Sellier 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Pezzullo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Psicologia GeneraleUniversità di PadovaPodovaItaly

Personalised recommendations