• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Psychology >The intersection between Descriptivism and Meliorism in reasoning research: further proposals in support of ‘soft normativism’
【2h】

The intersection between Descriptivism and Meliorism in reasoning research: further proposals in support of ‘soft normativism’

机译：推理研究中描述主义与精神主义之间的交集：支持软规范主义的进一步建议

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The rationality paradox centers on the observation that people are highly intelligent, yet show evidence of errors and biases in their thinking when measured against normative standards. reject normative standards in the psychological study of thinking, reasoning and deciding in favor of a ‘value-free’ descriptive approach to studying high-level cognition. In reviewing position, we defend an alternative to descriptivism in the form of ‘soft normativism,’ which allows for normative evaluations alongside the pursuit of descriptive research goals. We propose that normative theories have considerable value provided that researchers: (1) are alert to the philosophical quagmire of strong relativism; (2) are mindful of the biases that can arise from utilizing normative benchmarks; and (3) engage in a focused analysis of the processing approach adopted by individual reasoners. We address the controversial ‘is–ought’ inference in this context and appeal to a ‘bridging solution’ to this contested inference that is based on the concept of ‘informal reflective equilibrium.’ Furthermore, we draw on recognition of a role for normative benchmarks in research programs that are devised to enhance reasoning performance and we argue that such Meliorist research programs have a valuable reciprocal relationship with descriptivist accounts of reasoning. In sum, we believe that descriptions of reasoning processes are fundamentally enriched by evaluations of reasoning quality, and argue that if such standards are discarded altogether then our explanations and descriptions of reasoning processes are severely undermined.
机译：合理性悖论以观察者为中心，他们具有很高的智商，但在根据规范标准进行衡量时却显示出思维错误和偏见的证据。拒绝在思维，推理和决定的心理学研究中使用规范性标准，而倾向于使用“无价值”描述性方法来研究高级认知。在审查职位时，我们以“软规范主义”的形式捍卫了描述主义的另一种选择，这种形式允许进行规范性评估以及追求描述性研究目标。我们建议规范理论具有相当大的价值，只要研究人员能够：（1）警惕强相对主义的哲学困惑； （2）注意使用规范基准可能产生的偏见； （3）对个别推理者采用的处理方法进行重点分析。我们在这种情况下解决有争议的“应该”推论，并呼吁基于“非正式反射均衡”概念对此有争议的推论提供“过渡解决方案”。此外，我们基于对规范基准的作用的认识。在旨在提高推理性能的研究程序中，我们认为此类Meliorist研究程序与描述性推理有很强的互惠关系。总而言之，我们认为对推理过程的描述从根本上通过对推理质量的评估得到了丰富，并认为，如果这些标准被完全丢弃，那么我们对推理过程的解释和描述将受到严重破坏。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号