PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14704025

Counterexamples in sentential reasoning.

P N Johnson-Laird·Uri Hasson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How do logically naive individuals determine that an inference is invalid? In logic, there are two ways to proceed: (1) make an exhaustive search but fail to find a proof of the conclusion and (2) use the interpretation of the relevant sentences to construct a counterexample--that is, a possibility consistent with the premises but inconsistent with the conclusion. We report three experiments in which the strategies that individuals use to refute invalid inferences based on sentential connectives were examined. In Experiment 1, the participants' task was to justify their evaluations, and it showed that they used counterexamples more often than any other strategy. Experiment 2 showed that they were more likely to use counterexamples to refute invalid conclusions consistent with the premises than to refute invalid conclusions inconsistent with the premises. In Experiment 3, no reliable difference was detected in the results between participants who wrote justifications and participants who did not.

Explore related subjects

Concept FormationHumansLogicProbability LearningProblem SolvingPsycholinguisticsReadingSemanticsSet, PsychologyJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P N Johnson-Laird, Uri Hasson. 2003. Counterexamples in sentential reasoning.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196131

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Multimodal similarity and categorization of novel, three-dimensional objects.

Similarity has been proposed as a fundamental principle underlying mental object representations and capable of supporting cognitive-level tasks such as categorization. However, much of the research has considered connections between similarity and categorization for tasks performed using a single perceptual modality. Considering similarity and categorization within a multimodal context opens up a number of important questions: Are the similarities between objects the same when they are perceived using different modalities or using more than one modality at a time? Is similarity still able to explain categorization performance when objects are experienced multimodally? In this study, we addressed these questions by having subjects explore novel, 3D objects which varied parametrically in shape and texture using vision alone, touch alone, or touch and vision together. Subjects then performed a pair-wise similarity rating task and a free sorting categorization task. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis of similarity data revealed that a single underlying perceptual map whose dimensions corresponded to shape and texture could explain visual, haptic, and bimodal similarity ratings. However, the relative dimension weights varied according to modality: shape dominated texture when objects were seen, whereas shape and texture were roughly equally important in the haptic and bimodal conditions. Some evidence was found for a multimodal connection between similarity and categorization: the probability of category membership increased with similarity while the probability of a category boundary being placed between two stimuli decreased with similarity. In addition, dimension weights varied according to modality in the same way for both tasks. The study also demonstrates the usefulness of 3D printing technology and MDS techniques in the study of visuohaptic object processing.

Concept Formation↗
PubMed2006

Infants' perception of information along object boundaries: concavities versus convexities.

Object parts are signaled by concave discontinuities in shape contours. In seven experiments, we examined whether 5- and 6 1/2-month-olds are sensitive to concavities as special aspects of contours. Infants of both ages detected discrepant concave elements amid convex distractors but failed to discriminate convex elements among concave distractors. This discrimination asymmetry is analogous to the finding that concave targets among convex distractors pop out for adults, whereas convex targets among concave distractors do not. Thus, during infancy, as during adulthood, concavities appear to be salient regions of shape contours. The current study also found that infants' detection of concavity is impaired if the contours that define concavity and convexity are not part of closed shapes. Thus, for infants, as for adults, concavities and convexities are defined more readily in the contours of closed shapes. Taken together, the results suggest that some basic aspects of part perception from shape contours are available by at least 5 months of age.

Concept Formation↗