The Klein Group, Squares of Opposition and the Explanation of Fallacies in Reasoning
- 95 Downloads
During the last decades, the psychology of reasoning has identified experimentally many fallacies committed by spontaneous reasoners. Given these experimental results, some theories have been developed about this phenomenon, mainly algorithmic theories. This paper develops instead a computational modelling of these current fallacies which appear as simplifications in the treatment of information that do not respect the formal rules of classical propositional logic. These fallacies are explained as crushes in the Klein group structure and so, in squares of opposition. These crushes are an effect of not to take into account the dual of the binary operator at work in the major premise of the inference. This analysis allows predictions on fallacies not identified before, which are fallacies produced when reasoning with incompatibilities. The paper concludes with consequences of the analysis on pedagogical strategies for the teaching of logic.
KeywordsHuman reasoning fallacies Klein group mental models computational modelling group crush predictions on fallacies reasoning with incompatibilities squares of opposition teaching of logic
Mathematics Subject ClassificationPrimary 06E05 Secondary 03A05 03B05
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Adler, J.E., Rips, Lance J.: Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
- 2.Brisson, J., de Chantal, P.L., Markovits, H.: Content effects in reasoning from an incompatibility: more evidence for a retrieval model. In: International Conference on Thinking: August 4–6, 2016. Brown University, Providence (2016) (page Forthcoming)Google Scholar
- 5.Evans, J.S.B.T., Newstead, S.E., Byrne, R.M.J.: Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction. Psychology Press, Hove (1993)Google Scholar
- 6.Inhelder, B., Piaget, J.: De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent. Presses universitaires de France, Paris (1955)Google Scholar
- 9.Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M.J.: Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale (1991)Google Scholar
- 12.Marr D.: Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information, vol. 2. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco (1982)Google Scholar
- 14.Piaget J.: Traite de logique. Essai de logistique operatoire. Armand Colin, Paris (1945)Google Scholar
- 15.Piaget, J.: L’épistémologie génétique. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1970)Google Scholar
- 16.Roberge J.J.: Effects of negation on adults’ comprehension of fallacious conditional and disjunctive arguments. J. General Psychol. 91, 287 (1974)Google Scholar
- 19.Wason P.C., Johnson-Laird P.N.: Psychology of Reasoning. Structure and Content. Batsford, London (1972)Google Scholar