Integrating Causal Bayes Nets and inferentialism in conditional inference

This paper argues that recent developments in inferentialism in the psychology of reasoning that challenge the suppositional approach advocated by David Over can be implemented in Causal Bayes Nets (CBNs). Inferentialism proposes that conditionals, if p then q, imply (either as a matter of their meaning or a conventional implicature) that there is an inferential dependency between p and q. These dependencies can be captured in the directional links of a CBN (p → q), which can, therefore, provide a theory of mental representation and inference that inferentialism currently lacks. This approach has already been demonstrated for causal conditionals. We conclude that this proposal, while losing some inferences valid in the suppositional view, gains others that we know people make while also retaining consistency with the general Bayesian framework for human reasoning.

[1]  I. Douven,et al.  Abductive conditionals as a test case for inferentialism , 2020, Cognition.

[2]  Nick Chater,et al.  New Paradigms in the Psychology of Reasoning. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  U. Hahn,et al.  Norm conflicts and conditionals. , 2019, Psychological review.

[4]  M. Oaksford,et al.  Paradigms, Possibilities, and Probabilities: Comment on Hinterecker, Knauff, and Johnson-Laird (2016) , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Cancellation, negation, and rejection , 2019, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Nicole Cruz de Echeverria Loebell,et al.  On the role of deduction in reasoning from uncertain premises , 2018 .

[7]  I. Douven,et al.  Best, Second-Best, and Good-Enough Explanations: How They Matter to Reasoning , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Janneke van Wijnbergen-Huitink,et al.  Conditionals and inferential connections: A hypothetical inferential theory , 2018, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  Kevin Currie-Knight Review of The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone , 2017 .

[10]  David Kellen,et al.  Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then” , 2017 .

[11]  U. Hahn,et al.  Between a conditional’s antecedent and its consequent: Discourse coherence vs. probabilistic relevance , 2017, Cognition.

[12]  Nick Chater,et al.  Causal Models and Conditional Reasoning , 2017 .

[13]  Henrik Singmann,et al.  Relevance and Reason Relations. , 2017, Cognitive science.

[14]  M. Oaksford,et al.  The elusive oddness of or-introduction , 2017 .

[15]  Nick Chater,et al.  Discounting and Augmentation in Causal Conditional Reasoning: Causal Models or Shallow Encoding? , 2016, PloS one.

[16]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  The relevance effect and conditionals , 2016, Cognition.

[17]  K. Stenning,et al.  Logic programming, probability, and two-system accounts of reasoning: a rejoinder to Oaksford and Chater (2014) , 2016 .

[18]  N. Chater,et al.  Probabilities, causation, and logic programming in conditional reasoning: reply to Stenning and Van Lambalgen (2016) , 2016 .

[19]  Franziska Hoffmann,et al.  Fact Fiction And Forecast , 2016 .

[20]  Jean Baratgin,et al.  Centering and the meaning of conditionals , 2016, CogSci.

[21]  Thank You,et al.  Spurious Correlations , 2015, Science.

[22]  David E. Over,et al.  Bayesian reasoning with ifs and ands and ors , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[23]  Shira Elqayam,et al.  Deontic introduction: A theory of inference from is to ought. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  N. Chater,et al.  Probabilistic single function dual process theory and logic programming as approaches to non-monotonicity in human vs. artificial reasoning , 2014 .

[25]  Nick Chater,et al.  Dynamic inference and everyday conditional reasoning in the new paradigm , 2013 .

[26]  Igor Douven,et al.  Inferential Conditionals and Evidentiality , 2013, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[27]  Philip M. Fernbach,et al.  A quantitative causal model theory of conditional reasoning. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Nick Chater,et al.  The mental representation of causal conditional reasoning: Mental models or causal models , 2011, Cognition.

[29]  N. Chater,et al.  Causation and Conditionals in the Cognitive Science of Human Reasoning~!2009-12-08~!2010-01-18~!2010-07-13~! , 2010 .

[30]  N. Chater,et al.  Causation and Conditionals in the Cognitive Science of Human Reasoning , 2010 .

[31]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. , 2010 .

[32]  N. Chater,et al.  Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning , 2009, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  A Causal Model Theory of the Meaning of Cause, Enable, and Prevent , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  Masasi Hattori,et al.  Adaptive Non-Interventional Heuristics for Covariation Detection in Causal Induction: Model Comparison and Rational Analysis , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[35]  K. Maier INQUIRY , 2007 .

[36]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Structure and strength in causal induction , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  O. Wilhelm,et al.  Effects of Directionality in Deductive Reasoning: II. Premise Integration and Conclusion Evaluation , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[38]  S. Sloman Causal Models: How People Think about the World and Its Alternatives , 2005 .

[39]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Do We "do"? , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  David E Over,et al.  Conditionals and conditional probability. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  O. Wilhelm,et al.  Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: I. The comprehension of single relational premises. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[44]  K. Bach The Myth of Conventional Implicature , 1999 .

[45]  N. Chater,et al.  The Probability Heuristics Model of Syllogistic Reasoning , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[46]  Nick Chater,et al.  A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. , 1994 .

[47]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. , 1993 .

[48]  Jonathan St. B. T. Evans,et al.  The mental model theory of conditional reasoning: critical appraisal and revision , 1993, Cognition.

[49]  N. Chater,et al.  Against Logicist Cognitive Science , 1991 .

[50]  F. Récanati The Pragmatics of What is Said , 1989 .

[51]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems , 1988 .

[52]  F.J.M.M. Veltman,et al.  Logics for conditionals. , 1985 .

[53]  N. Cocchiarella,et al.  Situations and Attitudes. , 1986 .

[54]  H. Kyburg,et al.  How the laws of physics lie , 1984 .

[55]  Hal R. Arkes,et al.  Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. , 1983 .

[56]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. , 1981 .

[57]  D. Lewis Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities , 1976 .

[58]  J. Kahn,et al.  Mental Mechanisms , 1965, Mental Health.

[59]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[60]  J. McKinsey,et al.  The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals. , 1947 .

[61]  Roderick M. Chisholm,et al.  The Contrary-to-Fact Conditional. , 1947 .