Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T21:51:05.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Throwing the normative baby out with the prescriptivist bathwater

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Theodora Achourioti
Affiliation:
Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation/Philosophy Department, University of Amsterdam, 1012 GC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.achourioti@uva.nl
Andrew Fugard
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Studies and Research in Information and Communication Technologies & Society, University of Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria. andy.fugard@sbg.ac.at
Keith Stenning
Affiliation:
School of Informatics, The Forum, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 1AB, Scotland, United Kingdom. k.stenning@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

It is neither desirable nor possible to eliminate normative concerns from the psychology of reasoning. Norms define the most fundamental psychological questions: What are people trying to do, and how? Even if no one system of reasoning can be the norm, pure descriptivism is as undesirable and unobtainable in the psychology of reasoning as elsewhere in science.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fugard, A. J. B., Pfeifer, N. & Mayerhofer, B. (2011a) Probabilistic theories of reasoning need pragmatics too: Modulating relevance in uncertain conditionals. Journal of Pragmatics 43:2034–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugard, A. J. B., Pfeifer, N., Mayerhofer, B. & Kleiter, G. D. (2011b) How people interpret conditionals: Shifts towards the conditional event. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(3):635–48.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958) Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1781/1998) Critique of pure reason, trans. Guyer, P. & Wood, A. W.. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge University Press. (Original German publication 1781).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1955) Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review 64(1):332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1970) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stenning, K. & van Lambalgen, M. (2008) Human reasoning and cognitive science. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenning, K. & van Lambalgen, M. (2010) The logical response to a noisy world. In: Cognition and conditionals: Probability and logic in human thought, ed. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., pp. 85102. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenning, K. & Yule, P. (1997) Image and language in human reasoning: A syllogistic illustration. Cognitive Psychology 34:109–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed