State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation

In this paper, a survey is presented of the main approaches to the structure of argumentation. The paper starts with a historical overview of the distinctions between various types of argument structure. Next, the main definitions given in the various approaches are discussed as well as the methods that are proposed to deal with doubtful cases.     

Intelligence and negation biases on the Conditional Inference Task: A dual-processes analysis

We examined a large set of conditional inference data compiled from several previous studies and asked three questions: How is normative performance related to intelligence? Does negative conclusion bias stem from Type 1 or Type 2 processing? Does implicit negation bias stem from Type 1 or Type 2 processing? Our analysis demonstrated that rejecting denial of the antecedent and affirmation of the consequent inferences was positively correlated with intelligence, while endorsing modus tollens inferences was not; that the occurrence of negative conclusion bias was related to the extent of Type 2 processing; and that the occurrence of implicit negation bias was not related to the extent of Type 2 processing. We conclude that negative conclusion bias is, at least in part, a product of Type 2 processing, while implicit negation bias is not.     

Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model

Some solo verbal reasoning serves the function of arriving at a correct answer to a question from information at the reasoner’s disposal. Such reasoning is good if and only if its grounds are justified and adequate, its warrant is justified, and the reasoner is justified in assuming that no defeaters apply. I distinguish seven sources of justified grounds and state the conditions under which each source is trustworthy. Adequate grounds include all good relevant information practically obtainable by the reasoner. The claim must follow from the grounds in accordance with a justified general warrant. If this warrant is not universal, the reasoner must be justified in assuming that no exception-making circumstances hold in the particular case to which it is applied.     

Rules for Reasoning from Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge

In this paper, the traditional view that argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy is challenged, and lessons are drawn on how to model inferences drawn from knowledge in combination with ones drawn from lack of knowledge. Five defeasible rules for evaluating knowledge-based arguments that apply to inferences drawn under conditions of lack of knowledge are formulated. They are the veridicality rule, the consistency of knowledge rule, the closure of knowledge rule, the rule of refutation and the rule for argument from ignorance. The basic thesis of the paper is that knowledge-based arguments, including the argument from ignorance, need to be evaluated by criteria for epistemic closure and other evidential rules that are pragmatic in nature, that need to be formulated and applied differently at different stages of an investigation or discussion. The paper helps us to understand practical criteria that should be used to evaluate all arguments based on knowledge and/or ignorance.

E Contrario Reasoning: The Dilemma of the Silent Legislator

Summary This contribution offers an evaluation of e contrario reasoning in which the interpretation of a legal rule is based on the context of the law system (contextual e contrario reasoning). A model is presented which will show all the explicit and implicit elements of the argument at work and will also point out how these distinct parts are interrelated. By questioning the content and justificatory power of these elements, the weak spots in the argument can be laid bare. It will be argued that e contrario reasoning inevitably requires a dubious argumentative step, which renders the argument intrinsically weak. The model is applied to a European lawsuit on French cheese.     

The Logic of Critique

This paper attempts to define the concept of critique, explain its function␣and properties and distinguish it from the close concept of evaluation. It is argued that, beyond the argument, a critique is concerned with the position of the proponent relatively to the reality the argument is about. Moreover, a critique is itself an argument in which assumptions regarding the position of the proponent are justified for a given audience on the basis of the proponent’s argumentative background within a specific domain.     

内隐推理的实验研究

采用加工分离程序和多重分离程序,以瑞文高级推理测验为实验材料,对内隐推理进行了实验研究。实验1对包含测验与排除测验中正确猜测的期望概率进行了估计;实验2采用公式P1=Pc∪PA∪R1和PE=PC^－∩(PA∪RE)对外显推理和内隐推理的贡献进行了计算。结果发现存在显著的外显推理和内隐推理效应。     

When Is Genetic Reasoning Not Fallacious?

Attempts to evaluate a belief or argument on the basis of its cause or origin are usually condemned as committing the genetic fallacy. However, I sketch a number of cases in which causal or historical factors are logically relevant to evaluating a belief, including an interesting abductive form that reasons from the best explanation for the existence of a belief to its likely truth. Such arguments are also susceptible to refutation by genetic reasoning that may come very close to the standard examples given of supposedly fallacious genetic reasoning.     

注意分散对类比推理内隐加工的影响

通过两个实验分别考察在类比推理的检索阶段和评价阶段的注意分散对类比推理内隐加工的影响。实验一以83名大学生为被试,采用喜好判断范式探讨检索阶段注意分散对类比推理过程中直觉加工效应和逻辑加工效应的不同影响。实验二以80名大学生为被试,探讨评价阶段注意分散对类比推理过程中直觉加工效应和逻辑加工效应的不同影响。结果显示:检索阶段的注意分散对类比推理的内隐加工的影响不显著,评价阶段的注意分散对类比推理的内隐加工和外显加工均有显著影响。     

The effect of the validity of co‐occurrence on automatic and deliberate evaluations

Co‐occurrence of an object and affective stimuli does not always mean that the object and the stimuli are the same valence (e.g., false accusations that Richard is a crook). Contemporary theory posits that information about the (in)validity of co‐occurrence has stronger influence on deliberate than automatic evaluation. However, available evidence supports that hypothesis only when the (in)validity information is delayed. Further, the existing evidence is open to alternative methodological accounts. In six high‐powered experiments (total N = 1750), we modified previous procedures to minimize alternative explanations and examine whether delayed (in)validity information has a discrepant effect on automatic versus deliberate evaluation. Casting doubt on the generality of the hypothesis, we found more sensitivity of deliberate than automatic evaluation to delayed validity information only when automatic evaluation was measured with the Implicit Association Test and not with the evaluative priming task or the affective misattribution procedure.     

绩效归因过程及其对低工作绩效评估的影响

采用阈上启动方法和投射方法,以72名学校领导者为被试,对绩效归因过程及领导者有关下属低工作绩效归因和评估进行了探讨。研究表明：（1）绩效归因是双重过程：包括绩效外显归因和内隐归因;（2）外显因素影响领导者对下属低工作绩效行为的归因和评估,其中,领导者对下属低工作绩效行为的归因起中介作用;（3）绩效归因对低工作绩效评估的影响是双重过程：绩效外显归因和绩效内隐归因均影响了低工作绩效评估。     

内隐和外显道德评价的比较研究——来自眼动的证据

为探索内隐道德直觉和外显道德推理在道德评价中的差异及其内在机制,此研究将道德图片内容限定在伤害/关心维度,同时考虑道德效价以及情绪唤醒度,利用眼动追踪技术,考察内隐和外显道德任务中,道德直觉和道德推理的眼动轨迹及其加工过程差异。眼动结果发现,外显和内隐任务中个体均对低唤醒道德图片的首次注视时间更短,对低唤醒不道德图片总注视时间更长; 内隐任务和外显任务早期自动化加工阶段的平均凝视时间无显著差异; 内隐任务中,对不道德图片比对道德图片晚期平均凝视时间更长,瞳孔直径在中晚期时显著增加。此研究结果提示无论是道德直觉过程还是道德推理过程都是意识和无意识之间的相互作用,但是道德直觉过程的加工可能存在时间上的滞后性。     

Examining the influence of anecdotal stories and the interplay of individual differences on reasoning

In two experiments, we explored whether anecdotal stories influenced how individuals reasoned when evaluating scientific news articles. We additionally considered the role of education level and thinking dispositions on reasoning. Participants evaluated eight scientific news articles that drew questionable interpretations from the evidence. Overall, anecdotal stories decreased the ability to reason scientifically even when controlling for education level and thinking dispositions. Additionally, we found that article length was related to participants' ratings of the news articles. Our study demonstrates that anecdotes can discourage scientific reasoning while also pointing to the potential influence of article length on judgements of quality.     

Biased recipients encounter biased sources: Effect of ethical (dis‐)agreement between recipient and author on evaluating scientific claims

Scientific claims that are connected to ethical concerns are frequently brought forward by communicators who are not ethically neutral. This study investigated how far recipients' evaluation of such claims is guided by vigilance toward a potential ethical source bias rather than their own ethical bias. One hundred ten individuals opposed to capital punishment read a topic‐related text by an ethically positioned source. A scientific claim in the text either supported or did not support the recipient's ethical stance; in addition, the source either shared or opposed their stance. Results showed that recipients are guided to some extent by their own ethically motivated reasoning: They agree more consistently with sources sharing their ethical stance and consider these sources to be more credible. Recipients appear to be principally aware that a source's ethical stance may bias its scientific message, but this vigilance seems to depend on their own ethical disagreement with the source.     

The Effects of Need for Cognition and Need for Affect on Partisan Evaluations

The voting behavior literature has advanced two prominent theoretical models of partisanship: the social psychological and rational models. Implicit to both stylized models is the assumption that all partisans process information similarly. Yet, growing research in psychology suggests that individuals possess different motivations when evaluating information. We propose that the applicability of the stylized models of partisanship is conditioned on individuals' need for cognition (NFC) and need for affect (NFA), with the social psychological model being most applicable to individuals who have a high NFA and the rational model most applicable to those with a high NFC. To test this proposition, we fielded a survey in which respondents who identified with the two major political parties in the United States (Democrat or Republican) were randomly assigned factual information that depicted either their party or their opposing party in a negative light. Respondents were then asked to assess the actions of that party and subsequently evaluate both political parties. We find evidence that is generally consistent with the proposition that the stylized models of partisanship are conditionally dependent on the extent to which individuals possess a need to engage in effortful thinking or a need to seek out emotions.