Thinking and Reasoning
By A. Garnham. 1994
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Jonathan Evans
- Ruth M. J. Byrne
- David E. Over
- Valerie A. Thompson
- Mike Oaksford
- Orlando Espino
- N. Chater
- Philip N. Johnson-Laird
Citations in the corpus
- Counterfactuals in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Evidence from Human Reasoning (2019, background): “Strikingly, when people think about an outcome, they spontaneously offer about twice as many causal explanations that describe the facts as they happened, rather than counterfactual thoughts that refer to an imagined alternative [McEleney and Byrne, 2006].”
- Dynamic inference and everyday conditional reasoning in the new paradigm (2013, background): “This nomenclature had such clear intuitive appeal as a description of recent developments in the psychology of reasoning that it has already found its way into the textbooks (Manktelow, 2012).”
- Reasoning to and from belief: Deduction and induction are still distinct (2013, result): “Findings with this old paradigm indicated otherwise, however, as study after study showed logical errors, cognitive biases, and content-dependent reasoning (Evans, 2002; Evans, Newstead, & Byrne, 1993; Manktelow, 2012).”
- Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. (2002, background): “There are more experimental studies of these and other inferences with if than of any other deductive term (for reviews, see Baron, 1994; J. Evans, Newstead, & Byrne, 1993; Garnham & Oakhill, 1994).”
- Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? (2001, background): “These “errors” in logical reasoning have been seen as reflections of the confirmation bias, the matching bias, and the availability heuristic (for a review, see Garnham & Oakhill 1994).”
- Critical thinking in education: a review (2000, background): “The authors recognize that the nature of thinking is contested and they acknowledge that the notion of ‘far’ transfer, for instance, from one discipline domain to another, is problematic (Drew, 1998; Garnham and Oakhill, 1994).”