{"title":"概念清晰度和经验可检验性:评Knauff和Gazzo Castañeda (2023)","authors":"N. Cruz","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2022.2112757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2022) criticise the use of the term “new paradigm” in the psychology of reasoning and raise important issues about how to advance research in the field. In this commentary I argue that for the latter it would be helpful to clarify further the concepts that reasoning theories rely on, and to strengthen the links between the theories and the empirical observations that would and would not be compatible with them.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"55 1","pages":"396 - 408"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conceptual clarity and empirical testability: Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)\",\"authors\":\"N. Cruz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2022.2112757\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2022) criticise the use of the term “new paradigm” in the psychology of reasoning and raise important issues about how to advance research in the field. In this commentary I argue that for the latter it would be helpful to clarify further the concepts that reasoning theories rely on, and to strengthen the links between the theories and the empirical observations that would and would not be compatible with them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"396 - 408\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2112757\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2112757","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Conceptual clarity and empirical testability: Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)
Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2022) criticise the use of the term “new paradigm” in the psychology of reasoning and raise important issues about how to advance research in the field. In this commentary I argue that for the latter it would be helpful to clarify further the concepts that reasoning theories rely on, and to strengthen the links between the theories and the empirical observations that would and would not be compatible with them.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
