Normative vs. Descriptive Accounts in the Philosophy and Psychology of Reasoning and Argumenta-tion: Tension or Productive Interplay?

推理和论证的哲学和心理学中的规范性与描述性解释：张力还是富有成效的相互作用？

• 批准号: 448424181
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Stephan Hartmann
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Department of Psychological Sciences
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2019-12-31 至 2023-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/448424181?language=en
• 关键词: Normative; vs.; Descriptive; Accounts; Philosophy

It is a longstanding insight (Hume, 1740) that the normative and descriptive are different in kind so that inferring an is from an ought or vice versa is fallacious. Just because there is litter doesn't mean there ought to be, and just because littering is an offence doesn't mean there won't be. However, closer inspection of many co texts involving norms (that is, standards of what we ought to do) suggests that the normative and the descriptive are less separate and less separable in practice than these basic considerations about 'kinds' suggest. This is apparent in attempts to make precise what gives standards theirnormative force. It is also apparent in the many context in which norms are applied in the context of descriptive research, such as research on human rationality within psychology or economics. And it is apparent in contexts where researchers seek to develop new norms for aspects of human behaviour that are not yet covered by norms of rationality even though it seems plausible that they would be. In all these cases, it is clear that the relationship between the normative and descriptive exhibits a breadth of interaction hat is neither properly catalogued nor systematically understood in the extant literature. These deficits are pressing because our normative projects themselves are far from complete, and they are widely drawn on in empirical disciplines. It is the premise of this proposal that progress could be made by tackling head on a fundamental issue that looms large in all of this: the issue of idealisation and abstraction. The goal of the present project is to illuminate this aspect through a new perspective derived from considering science as asystem dealing with idealisation. Humankinds' most highly developed system for dealing with the world is centrally confronted with the issue of idealisation and abstraction at every turn. We thus seek to import distinctions from science, such as that between framework, theory and model, to provide a new critical lens for the normativity issue. This will be cashed out in systematic analysis of extant research and in the context of a normative development case study, in which we seek to develop a new normative framework for testimony involving conditionals (e.g., you are told 'if you eat cheesebefore bed, you will have nightmares')--something we encounter daily in everyday life, that -remarkably- presently does not have an adequate normative treatment.The project will develop the new perspective on the normative-descriptive relationship, evaluate extant research, and actively track the new perspective while conducting research aimed at developing an adequate normative account of the testimonial assertion of conditionals.

这是一个长期的见解（休谟，1740），规范性和描述性是不同的种类，因此推断是从一个应该或反之亦然是谬误的。仅仅因为有垃圾并不意味着应该有，仅仅因为乱扔垃圾是一种犯罪并不意味着不会有。然而，对许多涉及规范（即我们应该做什么的标准）的共同文本的更仔细的检查表明，规范性和描述性在实践中比这些关于“种类”的基本考虑所建议的更少分离和更少分离。这一点在试图明确是什么赋予标准规范性力量时显而易见。在许多描述性研究中应用规范的情况也很明显，例如心理学或经济学中对人类理性的研究。在研究人员试图为人类行为的某些方面制定新的规范的背景下，这一点是显而易见的，这些方面尚未被理性规范所涵盖，尽管它们似乎是合理的。在所有这些情况下，很明显，规范性和描述性之间的关系表现出广泛的相互作用，既没有适当的编目，也没有系统地理解现存的文献。这些缺陷是紧迫的，因为我们的规范项目本身还远远没有完成，它们被广泛地引用在经验学科中。这一建议的前提是，通过正面解决一个在所有这一切中都显得很重要的基本问题，即理想化和抽象化的问题，可以取得进展。本项目的目标是通过将科学视为处理理想化的系统而得出的新视角来阐明这一点。人类处理世界的最高度发达的系统在每一个转折点都面临着理想化和抽象化的问题。因此，我们试图从科学中引入框架、理论和模型之间的区别，为规范性问题提供一个新的批判透镜。这将在对现有研究的系统分析和规范发展案例研究的背景下得到兑现，在该案例研究中，我们寻求为涉及条件句的证词开发一个新的规范框架（例如，你被告知“如果你在睡觉前吃奶酪，你会做噩梦”）--这是我们在日常生活中每天都会遇到的事情，值得注意的是，目前还没有足够的规范性治疗。该项目将发展规范性描述关系的新视角，评估现有的研究，并积极跟踪新的观点，同时进行研究，旨在发展一个充分的规范性帐户的证词断言，条件句