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

这是一个长期存在的见解（休谟，1740），规范性和描述性在性质上是不同的，因此从“应该”或“应该”推断出“是”是谬误的。乱扔垃圾并不意味着应该有，乱扔垃圾是一种犯罪行为也不意味着不会有。然而，对许多涉及规范（即我们应该做什么的标准）的文本进行更仔细的检查表明，规范性和描述性在实践中比这些关于“种类”的基本考虑所暗示的更少分离和不可分离。在试图明确是什么赋予标准规范性力量的过程中，这一点很明显。在许多情况下，规范在描述性研究的背景下被应用，例如心理学或经济学中对人类理性的研究，这一点也很明显。在研究人员试图为尚未被理性规范涵盖的人类行为方面制定新规范的背景下，这一点很明显，尽管它们似乎似乎是合理的。在所有这些案例中，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，在现有文献中既没有适当的分类，也没有系统地理解。这些缺陷是紧迫的，因为我们的规范性项目本身远未完成，它们在经验学科中被广泛引用。这一提议的前提是，如果能彻底解决在所有这一切中突出的一个根本问题，即理想化和抽象问题，就能取得进展。本项目的目标是通过将科学视为处理理想化的系统而产生的新视角来阐明这方面。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的问题。因此，我们寻求从科学中引入区别，例如框架、理论和模型之间的区别，为规范性问题提供一个新的批判性视角。这将在现有研究的系统分析和规范发展案例研究的背景下实现，其中我们试图为涉及条件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，目前还没有适当的规范治疗。该项目将开发规范-描述关系的新视角，评估现有研究，并积极跟踪新视角，同时开展旨在开发条件句证明断言的适当规范说明的研究。

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.