The difference between generating counter examples and using them during reasoning.

Niki Verschueren, Walter Schaeken, Wim De Neys, Géry d'Ydewalle
{"title":"The difference between generating counter examples and using them during reasoning.","authors":"Niki Verschueren,&nbsp;Walter Schaeken,&nbsp;Wim De Neys,&nbsp;Géry d'Ydewalle","doi":"10.1080/02724980343000774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this article is to provide insight into the types of long-term knowledge that are used for solving causal conditional inferences. Two taxonomies were constructed to map the types of counter example. The available counter examples are traditionally probed via a counter example generation task. We observed that there are some significant differences in the types of counter example retrieved in the reasoning task versus the generation task. The generation task can be used for predicting answers that sprout from a reasoning process that takes counter example into account, but some participants use a different reasoning process in which the available semantic information is not used as contrasting evidence. Nonetheless, we found that the results of the generation task validly predicted the proportion of inferences accepted as well as the number of counter examples used during reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":77437,"journal":{"name":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","volume":"57 7","pages":"1285-308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02724980343000774","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000774","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

The aim of this article is to provide insight into the types of long-term knowledge that are used for solving causal conditional inferences. Two taxonomies were constructed to map the types of counter example. The available counter examples are traditionally probed via a counter example generation task. We observed that there are some significant differences in the types of counter example retrieved in the reasoning task versus the generation task. The generation task can be used for predicting answers that sprout from a reasoning process that takes counter example into account, but some participants use a different reasoning process in which the available semantic information is not used as contrasting evidence. Nonetheless, we found that the results of the generation task validly predicted the proportion of inferences accepted as well as the number of counter examples used during reasoning.

生成反例和在推理过程中使用反例之间的区别。
本文的目的是深入了解用于解决因果条件推理的长期知识的类型。构造了两个分类法来映射反例的类型。可用的反例传统上是通过反例生成任务来探测的。我们观察到在推理任务和生成任务中检索到的反例类型有一些显著的差异。生成任务可用于预测从考虑反例的推理过程中产生的答案,但一些参与者使用不同的推理过程,其中可用的语义信息不用作对比证据。尽管如此,我们发现生成任务的结果有效地预测了可接受的推理比例以及推理过程中使用的反例数量。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信