Deductive schemas with uncertain premises using qualitative probability expressions

References

• Adams, E. (1998). A primer of probability logic. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J. (2002). Is the human mind definitely not Bayesian? A review of the various arguments. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 21, 653–680.
   Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J. (in press). Le raisonnement humain: une approche finettienne [Human reasoning: A Finettian approach]. Paris: Hermann.
   Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J. & Politzer, G. (2006). Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism. Mind and Society, 5, 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J., & Politzer, G. (2007) The psychology of dynamic probability judgment: Order effect, normative theory and experimental methodology. Mind and Society, 5, 53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J., & Politzer, G. (in press). Logic, probability, and inference: A methodology for a new paradigm. In L. Macchi, M. Bagassi, & R. Viale (Eds.), Cognitive unconscious and human rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J., Over, D. P., & Politzer, G. (2013). Uncertainty and the de Finetti tables. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 308–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baratgin, J., Over, D. P., & Politzer, G. (2014). New psychological paradigm for conditionals and general de Finetti tables. Mind and Language, 29, 73–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braine, M. D. S., Reiser, B. J., & Rumain, B. (1984). Some empirical justification for a theory of natural propositional logic. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 18, pp. 313–371). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coletti, G., & Scozzafava, G. (2002). Probabilistic logic in a coherent setting. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Cruz, N., Baratgin, J., Oaksford, M., & Over, D. E. (2015). Bayesian reasoning with ifs and ands and ors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz, N. & Oberauer, K. (2014). Comparing the meanings of “if” and “ all”. Memory and Cognition, 42, 1345–1356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Finetti, B. (1964). Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources. In H. E. Kyburg Jr. & H. E. Smokler (Eds.), Studies in subjective probability (pp. 193–158). New York, NY: John Wiley. [Originally published 1937].
   Google Scholar
• de Finetti, B. (1974). Theory of probability (Vol 1). Chichester: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• de Finetti, B. (1975). Theory of probability (Vol. 2). Chichester: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• de Finetti, B. (1980). Probabilità. Enciclopedia (Vol. X, pp. 1146–1187). Torino: Einaudi.
   Google Scholar
• de Finetti, B. (1995). The logic of probability. Philosophical Studies, 77, 181–190. [Originally published 1936].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2013). Rationality in the new paradigm: Strict versus soft Bayesian approaches. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 453–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elqayam, S., & Over, D. E. (2013). New paradigm psychology of reasoning: An introduction to the special issue edited by Elqayam, Bonnefon, and Over. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 249–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Questions ad challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 5–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (2013). Reasoning to and from belief: Deduction and induction are still distinct. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 267–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., Thompson, V., & Over, D. E. (2015). Uncertain deduction and conditional reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, C. (1997). Reasoning from uncertain premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 3, 161–189.
   Google Scholar
• Gilio, A. (2002). Probabilistic reasoning under coherence in system P. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial intelligence, 34, 131–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilio, A., & Over, D. P. (2012). The psychology of inferring conditionals from disjunctions: A probabilistic study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 118–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. (1975). The emergence of probability: A philosophy study of early ideas about probability, induction, and statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hailperin, T. (1996). Sentential probability logic. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hailperin, T. (2010). Logic with a probability semantics. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey, R. (1991). Matter-of-fact conditionals. The Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, LXV, 161–183.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R. (2014). The psychology of Bayesian reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 69–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Over, D. E. (2009). New paradigm psychology of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 15, 431–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N. (2014). Reasoning about uncertain conditionals. Studia Logica, 8, 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2005). Coherence and nonmonotonicity in human reasoning. Synthese, 146, 93–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2006a). Inference in conditional probability logic. Kybernetika, 42, 391–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2006b, September). Is human reasoning about nonmonotonic reasoning conditionals probabilistically coherent? In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning (pp. 138–150). Mikulov, Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2007, July 16–19). Human reasoning with imprecise probabilities: Modus ponens and denying the antecedent. In Fifth International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and applications (pp. 347–356). Prague.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2009). Framing human inference by coherence based probability logic. Journal of Applied Logic, 7, 206–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2010). The conditional in mental probability logic. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Cognition and conditionals (pp. 153–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2011). Uncertain deductive reasoning. In K. Manktelow, D. Over, & S. Elqayam (Eds.), The science of reason (pp. 145–166). Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Politzer, G. (2015). Deductive reasoning under uncertainty: A water tank analogy (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_01140941
   Google Scholar
• Politzer, G. (in press). Deductive reasoning under uncertainty: A water tank analogy. Erkenntnis.
   Google Scholar
• Politzer, G., Over, D. E., & Baratgin, J. (2010). Betting on conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 172–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rips, L. J. (1983). Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 38–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rips, L. J., & Conrad, F. G. (1983). Individual differences in deduction. Cognition and Brain Theory, 6, 259–285.
   Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., Klauer, K. C., & Over, D. E. (2014). New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tentori, K., Crupi, V., & Russo, S. (2013). On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: probability versus inductive confirmation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 235–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar