多元思维的广度

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2023-03-28 DOI:10.22329/il.v43i1.7639

D. Kuhn, A. Modrek

{"title":"多元思维的广度","authors":"D. Kuhn, A. Modrek","doi":"10.22329/il.v43i1.7639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Simple explanations are very often inadequate and can encourage faulty inferences. We examined college students’ explanations regarding illegal immigration to determine the prevalence of single-factor explanations. The form of students’ explanations was predicted by their responses on a simple three-item forced-choice multivariable causal reasoning task in which they selected the strongest evidence against a causal claim. In a further qualitative investigation of explanations by a sample of community adults, we identified positive features among those who scored high on this multivariable causal reasoning task. We consider limitations of single-factor reasoning and means of encouraging more comprehensive explanations to support claims.","PeriodicalId":45902,"journal":{"name":"Informal Logic","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Broad Reach of Multivariable Thinking\",\"authors\":\"D. Kuhn, A. Modrek\",\"doi\":\"10.22329/il.v43i1.7639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Simple explanations are very often inadequate and can encourage faulty inferences. We examined college students’ explanations regarding illegal immigration to determine the prevalence of single-factor explanations. The form of students’ explanations was predicted by their responses on a simple three-item forced-choice multivariable causal reasoning task in which they selected the strongest evidence against a causal claim. In a further qualitative investigation of explanations by a sample of community adults, we identified positive features among those who scored high on this multivariable causal reasoning task. We consider limitations of single-factor reasoning and means of encouraging more comprehensive explanations to support claims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Informal Logic\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Informal Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i1.7639\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informal Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i1.7639","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

简单的解释往往是不充分的，可能会助长错误的推断。我们调查了大学生对非法移民的解释，以确定单因素解释的普遍性。学生的解释形式是通过他们对简单的三项强迫选择多变量因果推理任务的回答来预测的，在该任务中，他们选择了反对因果主张的最强证据。在对社区成年人样本的解释进行的进一步定性调查中，我们发现了在这项多变量因果推理任务中得分较高的人的积极特征。我们考虑了单因素推理的局限性，以及鼓励更全面的解释来支持索赔的方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Broad Reach of Multivariable Thinking

Simple explanations are very often inadequate and can encourage faulty inferences. We examined college students’ explanations regarding illegal immigration to determine the prevalence of single-factor explanations. The form of students’ explanations was predicted by their responses on a simple three-item forced-choice multivariable causal reasoning task in which they selected the strongest evidence against a causal claim. In a further qualitative investigation of explanations by a sample of community adults, we identified positive features among those who scored high on this multivariable causal reasoning task. We consider limitations of single-factor reasoning and means of encouraging more comprehensive explanations to support claims.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.