PSY308 -- Reasoning
Terms in this set (63)
(obligatory social contract type):
Have 2 premises and a conclusion. The First premises has the form of "If...then...". Deductive reasoning that happens in our everyday lives.
P is the first, or "If" term
Q is the second, or "Then"
Affirming the antecedent
Because the antecedent, p, or "studying", in the 2nd premises is affirmed.
Denying the consequent (Syllogism 2):
because the consequent, q, or getting a good grade, in the second premises is negated (make ineffective).
Affirming the consequent (Syllogism 3)
Because q is affirmed in the 2nd premises, this conclusion is invalid, because even though you didn't study, it is still possible that you could have received a good grade. (Perhaps the exam was easy, or maybe you knew the material from job experience.
Denying the antecedent (Syllogism 4)
because p is negated (not p) in the 2nd premises.
Validity of Conditional Syllogism
can be greatly affected by whether the task is stated abstractly (in terms of p's and q's) or concretely (studying and grades; robins and birds)
Wason four-card problem
the effect of using real-world items in a conditional-reasoning problem is provided by a series of experiments involving the Wason 4 card problem.
premises are based on observation of one or more specific cases, and we generalize from these cases to a more general conclusion
involves a sequences of statements called syllogisms
is the basic form of deductive reasoning. It includes two statements called Premises, followed by a 3rd statement, called the Conclusion.
which involves in which premises and conclusion describe the relation between two categories by using statements that being with All, no, or some.
a syllogism is valid when its conclusion follows logically from its two premises.
Aristotle's "Perfect Syllogism" example
Premises (1): All A are B
Premises (2): All B are C
Conclusion: Therefore, All A are C
Basic Principle for deductive reasoning states
that if two premises of a valid syllogisms are true, the syllogism's conclusion must be true. F
states that words All, Some and No in there premises creates an overall "mood" or atmosphere" that can influence the evaluation of the conclusion
If a syllogism's conclusion is true or agrees with a person's beliefs, this increases the likelihood that syllogism will be judged as vaild.
believability invalid syllogisms
People are influenced by the believability of the conclusion, and thus they do not always follow the rules of logic.
a specific situation that is represented in a person's mind that can be used to help determine the validity of syllogism in deductive reasoning
To test a rule, it is necessary to look for situations that falsify the rule.
Pragmatic Reasoning Schema
Is a way of thinking about cause and effect in the world that is learned as part of experiencing everyday life
states that if a person satisfies condition A (such as being the legal age for drinking), then they get to carry out action B (being severed alcohol)
is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
refers to individual premises and conclusions
VALIDITY - T
refers to the relationship between premise and conclusion
obligatory, social contract type
Which states that an important aspect of human behavior is the ability for two people to cooperate in a way that is beneficial to both people
help use to overcome the conceptual vagueness. Or defining question for your research experiment/study
is consistency of measurement across time (10 now, then 10 later)
is consistency of measurement across people
suggest multiple measures that tap the same thing should yield similar results.
More smiles treated better
More jobs treated better
More donations treated better
is when we fool ourselves into thinking the measurement is better than it is.
aims to specify the relationship between two variables (x and y) and to be able to predict one from the other.
If the correlation is positive (+)
Then as x increases so does y
And as x decreases so does y
If the value is +1 or -1, then there is a perfect correlation between our x and our y
If Correlation is Negative (-)
Then as x increases, y decreases
And as x decreases, y increases
If the value is 0, then there is absolutely no relationship between our x and our y
Correlation describes Relations and not Causation!!!**
Behavior that is measured
Other things we must control
can happen as a result of using different measures of central tendency (an average score)
An argument is connected
series of statement to establish a definite proposition. Argument is more than contradiction but if I argue with you I must take up a contrary position
The goal of many of these arguments
is to get us to change our attitudes toward products, global issues, who should win X Factor...
An argument must have at least one premises and on conclusion
The premises should be true or at the very least reasonable given the current evidence
if there is more than one premises then they should not contradict one another
Premises (1):In a recession, individuals need to increase their saving
Premises (2): Economic recovery requires in increases in consumer spending
Conclusion: Consumers behavior needs to change for economic recovery
Premises Support Conclusion
The premises need to be both relevant and provide adequate grounds for the conclusion
Is there anything left out (intentionally or unintentionally)
Premises (1): I've never had any problem with the last four Fords I've owned (Evidence?)
Missing Assumption (2): If a company's products have been reliable in the past, its new products are likely to be reliable as well (Evidence?)
Conclusion: My new Ford should be reliable
Ad Hominem (AD Feminam)
An argument is rejected not on the basis of premises or conclusion, but because of the originator
occurs in advertising, in which previous (and assumedly positive) associations we have with celebrities are exploited.
Appeals to pity when arguing for a special treatment on the basis of need. Can be relevant in terms of charity
truth 'supported' by its popularity. Everyone else is doing it, so why don't we?
Presenting a limiting set of alternatives when there are more intermediate position to consider
the same scientific results were presented under 3 conditions. Individuals rated the statement "the scientific reasoning in the article made sense" higher when a brain image was used relative to either a bar graph or text
If it sounds like an argument when asking the question, then the person will perceive the question to be true. And will let the person use the photocopier.
The Central Route
The central route requires much from the Audience and the Quality of Relevant Evidence needs to be high
The peripheral Route requires little from the audience and the quality of relevant evidence can be low. Triggers arousal and emotion (negative and positive). Surface characteristics focus rather than root argument
Attributing an impossible position (which can be easily defeated) to an opponent
you observe events and then devise a hypotheses about the events you observed. "going from specific to general"
you being with hypotheses that you believe to be true then you make systematic observations to see if your hypotheses is true. "Going from the general to specific"