{"title":"“新范式”怎么了?评论克瑙夫和加佐Castañeda (2023)","authors":"P. Johnson-Laird, S. Khemlani","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (this issue) critique the \"new paradigm\" – a framework that replaces logic with probabilities – on the grounds that there existed no \"old” paradigm for it to supplant. Their position is supported by the large numbers of theories that theorists developed to explain the Wason selection task, syllogisms, and other tasks. We propose some measures to inhibit such facile theorizing, which threatens the viability of cognitive science. We show that robust results exist contrary to the new paradigm, and that it is unable to account for other results.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"54 1","pages":"409 - 415"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What happened to the “new paradigm”? Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)\",\"authors\":\"P. Johnson-Laird, S. Khemlani\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (this issue) critique the \\\"new paradigm\\\" – a framework that replaces logic with probabilities – on the grounds that there existed no \\\"old” paradigm for it to supplant. Their position is supported by the large numbers of theories that theorists developed to explain the Wason selection task, syllogisms, and other tasks. We propose some measures to inhibit such facile theorizing, which threatens the viability of cognitive science. We show that robust results exist contrary to the new paradigm, and that it is unable to account for other results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"409 - 415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-10\",\"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/10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532\",\"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/10.1080/13546783.2021.2022532","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
What happened to the “new paradigm”? Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (2023)
Abstract Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda (this issue) critique the "new paradigm" – a framework that replaces logic with probabilities – on the grounds that there existed no "old” paradigm for it to supplant. Their position is supported by the large numbers of theories that theorists developed to explain the Wason selection task, syllogisms, and other tasks. We propose some measures to inhibit such facile theorizing, which threatens the viability of cognitive science. We show that robust results exist contrary to the new paradigm, and that it is unable to account for other results.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
