新范式是新范式吗?评论克瑙夫和加佐Castañeda (2023)

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
I. Douven
{"title":"新范式是新范式吗?评论克瑙夫和加佐Castañeda (2023)","authors":"I. Douven","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2021.2017345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many cognitive psychologists have come to regard graded belief as fundamental to our understanding of how humans reason and many have also come to think of probability theory as providing at least part of the norms of correct reasoning. David Over has characterized this development as the emergence of a new paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. The target article argues that the choice of this term was unwarranted and also that it has done more harm than good. This commentary argues that there is nothing in Thomas Kuhn’s work to suggest that he would object to Over’s terminological choice and that there is no evidence that the choice has caused any harm.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"20 1","pages":"383 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the new paradigm a new paradigm? Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)\",\"authors\":\"I. Douven\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2021.2017345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Many cognitive psychologists have come to regard graded belief as fundamental to our understanding of how humans reason and many have also come to think of probability theory as providing at least part of the norms of correct reasoning. David Over has characterized this development as the emergence of a new paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. The target article argues that the choice of this term was unwarranted and also that it has done more harm than good. This commentary argues that there is nothing in Thomas Kuhn’s work to suggest that he would object to Over’s terminological choice and that there is no evidence that the choice has caused any harm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"383 - 388\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-18\",\"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/10.1080/13546783.2021.2017345\",\"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/10.1080/13546783.2021.2017345","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

许多认知心理学家已经开始将分级信念视为我们理解人类推理方式的基础,许多人也开始认为概率论至少提供了正确推理的部分规范。David Over将这一发展描述为库恩主义意义上的新范式的出现。目标文章认为,选择这个术语是没有根据的,而且它弊大于利。这篇评论认为,在托马斯·库恩的著作中没有任何迹象表明他会反对奥弗的术语选择,也没有证据表明这种选择造成了任何伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the new paradigm a new paradigm? Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)
Abstract Many cognitive psychologists have come to regard graded belief as fundamental to our understanding of how humans reason and many have also come to think of probability theory as providing at least part of the norms of correct reasoning. David Over has characterized this development as the emergence of a new paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. The target article argues that the choice of this term was unwarranted and also that it has done more harm than good. This commentary argues that there is nothing in Thomas Kuhn’s work to suggest that he would object to Over’s terminological choice and that there is no evidence that the choice has caused any harm.
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
×
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