Talk:Psychology of reasoning

Psychology of reasoning is not only about logic

In the edit summary of this edit, I said that psychology of reasoning is not only about logic. See, for example, Markovits, Henry, ed. (2014). The developmental psychology of reasoning and decision-making. Current issues in thinking and reasoning. London; New York: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9781315856568. ISBN 9781848721456. OCLC 853113611. The book description says: "The key theme of the book is to better understand how reasoning develops not only through examining 'logical' reasoning, but also the nature of the interactions between people's intuitions and their reasoning abilities." The book's Introduction says (pp. 2–3):

Given the strong tendency of adults to make intuitive judgments that are not logically, or rationally appropriate, it is clear that a simple replacement model whereby irrational, intuitive processes are gradually superseded by more complex forms of logical reasoning must be wrong. This raises some interesting questions which in one way or another underlie much of current developmental approaches to reasoning. The first of these is the epistemological status of intuition. There is a natural tendency to presume that any kind of rapid heuristic reasoning must be inherently illogical. However, there are sensible biological grounds to suppose that intuition, while possibly more variable than more explicit forms of analytic processing, must be reasonably rational in some sense. If this is the case, then the trade-off between heuristic and analytic processing must be more complicated at any age, since both forms of reasoning can be considered to have both benefits and costs. Thus, it becomes possible to argue, as we see in Chapter 3 by Weldon, Corbin and Reyna and Chapter 7 by De Neys, that intuitive processes allow access to some form of logical reasoning. In contrast, logic and rationality can also be conceived as the domain of explicit higher-level forms of processing, as witnessed by Moshman's metacognitive analysis or Gauffroy and Barrouillet's mental model approach. [...] While allowing a clear role for heuristic processes, this [latter] theory considers that the chief component of development is the increase in working-memory capacity. Reasoning is seen as a conscious and effortful attempt to process the underlying semantics of propositions by the construction of explicit models. Finally, Klaczynski and Felmban in Chapter 5 provide a detailed analysis of developmental patterns of heuristic responding, with emphasis on the role of developmental inversions. While not tied to a specific theory, this analysis provides a useful methodological overview of just what heuristic responding might mean, and how to reasonably measure it. Part 2 provides more detailed analyses of the specific cognitive functions that must underlie development. Moshman in Chapter 6 highlights the importance of understanding both the general progression from specific inferential processes, which often remain unconscious, to a more reflective metacognitive form of reasoning that can explicitly consider truth as an explicit construct. However, he also points out the domain specificity of such reasoning, implying that while there might be some underlying general processes involved, it is impossible to understand how more complex forms of reasoning develop without understanding the specific constraints of each domain.

Biogeographist (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Lets add "in cognitive science it's known as the cognitive science of reasoning"

I think it's an important "also known as". I don't understand why don't you want it added. Cognitive scientists have applied names to the same thing that exists in psychology with a different name. Uni3993 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You should present more sources here that support your proposal, preferably recent sources. Try to find recent relevant review articles or review monographs that discuss the state of the discipline(s). I am not sure exactly why Mvbaron rejected your previous source by Oaksford & Chater (probably because by itself it is weak as support for the "also known as" claim), but if you can present more recent sources that more explicitly discuss the equivalence (or other relation) between "psychology of reasoning" and "cognitive science of reasoning", I imagine that would overcome the objection.

I would guess that the words "in cognitive science" are not necessary; "also known as the cognitive science of reasoning" might be sufficient, given that Oaksford & Chater, for example, both worked in psychology departments when they wrote that article (though Chater later became a "professor of behavioural science" at a business school) so presumably it has been called "cognitive science of reasoning" in psychology too, if Oaksford & Chater presented their paper in their own psychology departments. Biogeographist (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "in cognitive science" is actually very necessary because they aren't exactly referring to the same study but they are related. Psychology has different schools cognitive, behavioral, biological, social etc but the lens of cognitive science generally concentrates on cognitive and biological it doesn't include the behavioral and social aspects that much.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni3993 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Biogeographist (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

https://qr.ae/pGO4J9, also I added a review monograph/textbook reference this time Uni3993 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The external link above is to Quora.com, which is not a reliable source per WP:UGC: it is user-generated content. The citation of The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science needs a page number for the passage that supports the "also known as" claim, so I added {{Page needed}}. Biogeographist (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Question, if the same user with a PhD had a website that had the same statement, would that be an acceptable reference? Uni3993 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

unfortunatley not, WP:RS would at least prefer a published source by an expert and peer reviewed, and certainly not a self-published source like a blog. -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! thank you for opening this talk page section. Yes I reverted the addition for two reasons

(1) the Oaksford source didn't make the connection. The only mention is this: More recently the probabilistic approach has been extended to the other core areas of the psychology of reasoning and it doesn't say anything about how the psychology of reasoning is called the cognitive science of reasoning. Also, page IX of The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science is the Contributors page of the book and doesn't even contain the word reasoning.

(2) Reason two is that "cog. sci. of reasoning" is a wider term than the "psychology of reasoning" so it didn't make sense for me.

But in the end, I believe I have overreacted in reverting, I apologize. Biogeographist's proposal to remove the "in cognitive science" strikes me as very good, I will make a WP:BOLD edit now and remove the two misleading sources and trim the sentence. Feel free to revert it and we can discuss it more. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The current version (in cog sci removed) is fine with me, I can accept that Uni3993 (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)