| Type de publication : |
 |
Articles dans des revues avec comité de lecture |
|
| Domaine : |
|
Sciences cognitives/Psychologie
|
|
| Titre : |
|
Mental Model Theory versus the Inference Rule Approach in relational reasoning |
|
| Auteur(s) : |
|
Jean-Baptiste Van Der Henst 1 |
|
| Laboratoire : |
|
|
|
| Résumé : |
|
Researchers currently working on relational reasoning typically argue that mental model theory (MMT) is a better account than the inference rule approach (IRA). They predict and observe that determinate (or one-model) problems are easier than indeterminate (or two-model) problems whereas according to them, IRA should lead to the opposite prediction. However, the predictions attributed to IRA are based on a mistaken argument. The IRA is generally presented in such a way that inference rules only deal with determinate relations and not with indeterminate ones. However, a) there is no reason to presuppose that rule-based procedure could not deal with indeterminate relations, and b) applying a rule-based procedure to indeterminate relations should result in greater difficulty. Hence, none of the recent articles devoted to relational reasoning currently presents a conclusive case for discarding IRA by using the well-known determinate vs. indeterminate problems comparison. |
|
Langue du texte
intégral : |
|
Anglais |
|
|
| Journal : |
|
Thinking & Reasoning |
|
| Date de publication : |
|
2002 |
|
| Volume : |
|
8 |
|
| Page, identifiant, ... : |
|
193-205 |
|
|
Récupérer au format
