Inference, Instruction, and Pragmatic Reasoning Schemes

推理、指导和实用推理方案

• 批准号: 8709892
• 负责人: Richard Nisbett
• 金额: $ 13.49万
• 依托单位: Regents of the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Continuing Grant
• 财政年份: 1987
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1987-09-01 至 1991-02-28
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=8709892&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Inference; Instruction; Pragmatic; Reasoning; Schemes

The classical view of reasoning holds that people solve problems by applying formal inferential rules such as the syntactic rules of deductive logic. Evidence based on previous work by Nisbett, Cheng, and Holyoak shows that people typically do not reason using such rules; instead, they use what they term pragmatic reasoning schemas, which are clusters of abstract rules organized according to goals and conditions of applicability. The pragmatic schemas studied so far include regulation schemas, such as permissions and obligations, and a qualitative version of the law of large numbers. Teaching such abstract pragmatic schemas improved reasoning, both immediately following training and after a delay of a week or two, whereas teaching formal rules did not improve reasoning, even immediately following training (or, in other studies, improved reasoning immediately, but the improvement decayed rapidly). One plausible explanation is that pragmatic rules are organized according to the conditions under which they apply, and therefore can be applied and practiced once they are learned. In contrast, formal rules do not specify conditions of applicability and therefore are difficult to apply. The first set of experiments will extend the pragmatic schema approach to the evaluation of evidence on cause-and-effect relations. The first experiment will test whether people use pragmatic rather than formal rules in evaluating causal relations. It will also investigate the reasons for common fallacies about causal relations. The second experiment will measure the effectiveness of current graduate training on causal reasoning in psychology and chemistry. Psychology students are exposed to a wider range of causal relations than chemistry students, and therefore should be more accurate in classifying events according to the type of causal relation involved. The third experiment will test whether causal reasoning can be taught effectively by abstract means, as predicted by the pragmatic hypothesis. The second set of experiments will extend the study of the duration of training effects of formal and pragmatic rules. Pragmatic training will include rules on obligations and causal relations. The third set of experiments will examine whether it is the naturalness or the pragmatic nature of the rules that lead to effective training. The last study will evaluate a new course on reasoning based on pragmatic rules. This research will lead to the development of instructions on reasoning more effective than training in formal logic. The new instructions, being theoretically based, will be more systematic as well as more general than the case-based methodnow prevalent in law, medical, and graduate schools. The instructions will cover reasoning on social regulations, explanation of variability based on the law of large numbers, and the evaluation of evidence in accepting or rejecting scientific hypotheses.

推理的经典观点认为人们解决问题 通过应用诸如句法规则之类的形式推理规则， 演绎逻辑。 根据尼斯贝特以前的工作， Cheng和Holyoak的研究表明，人们通常不会推理， 使用这样的规则;相反，他们使用他们所谓的实用主义 推理模式，它是一组抽象规则， 根据目标和适用条件。 的 语用图式的研究目前包括调节图式，如 作为许可和义务，以及定性版本的 大数定律 教授这种抽象的语用图式 改进的推理，无论是在培训后立即和之后 延迟一两周，而教授正式规则则不会 提高推理能力，即使是在训练之后（或者， 其他研究，立即改善推理，但 改善迅速衰减）。 一个合理的解释是， 语用规则是根据以下条件组织的 他们应用，因此可以应用和实践一次， 他们是有学问的。 相比之下，正式规则并不指定 适用条件，因此很难适用。 第一组实验将扩展语用图式 因果关系证据的评价方法 关系 第一个实验将测试人们是否使用 在评价因果关系时， 关系 它还将调查常见的原因， 关于因果关系的谬误 第二个实验将 衡量目前研究生培训的有效性， 心理学和化学中的推理。 心理学专业的学生 接触到比化学更广泛的因果关系 学生，因此应该更准确地分类 根据所涉及的因果关系的类型来确定事件。 的 第三个实验将测试因果推理是否可以教授 有效地通过抽象的手段，正如务实的预测， 假说. 第二组实验将扩展研究 正式和语用的培训效果的持续时间 规则 务实的培训将包括关于义务的规则， 因果关系。 第三组实验将检验 无论是自然性还是实用性， 这些规则有助于有效的培训。 最后一项研究将 评估一门关于基于语用规则的推理的新课程。 这项研究将导致制定关于 推理比形式逻辑训练更有效。 新 指导，有理论基础，将更加系统化 也比现在流行的基于案例的方法更普遍 在法学院医学院和研究生院 指令将 涵盖社会规则的推理，可变性的解释 基于大数定律和证据评估 接受或拒绝科学假设的能力