Argumentation and the diffusion of counter-intuitive beliefs.
نویسندگان
چکیده
Research in cultural evolution has focused on the spread of intuitive or minimally counterintuitive beliefs. However, some very counterintuitive beliefs can also spread successfully, at least in some communities-scientific theories being the most prominent example. We suggest that argumentation could be an important factor in the spread of some very counterintuitive beliefs. A first experiment demonstrates that argumentation enables the spread of the counterintuitive answer to a reasoning problem in large discussion groups, whereas this spread is limited or absent when participants can show their answers to each other but cannot discuss. A series of experiments using the technique of repeated transmission show that, in the case of the counterintuitive belief studied: (a) arguments can help spread this belief without loss; (b) conformist bias does not help spread this belief; and (c) authority or prestige bias play a minimal role in helping spread this belief. Thus, argumentation seems to be necessary and sufficient for the spread of some counterintuitive beliefs. (PsycINFO Database Record
منابع مشابه
Revisiting Unrestricted Rebut and Preferences in Structured Argumentation
In structured argumentation frameworks such as ASPIC, rebuts are only allowed in conclusions produced by defeasible rules. This has been criticized as counter-intuitive especially in dialectical contexts. In this paper we show that ASPIC−, a system allowing for unrestricted rebuts, suffers from contamination problems. We remedy this shortcoming by generalizing the attack rule of unrestricted re...
متن کاملCan AI Models Capture Natural Language Argumentation?
Formal AI models of argumentation define arguments as reasons that support claims (which may be beliefs, decisions, actions, . . .). Such arguments may be attacked by other arguments. The main issue is then to identify the accepted ones. Several semantics were thus proposed for evaluating the arguments. Works in linguistics focus mainly on understanding the notion of argument, identifying its t...
متن کاملCaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation
We present the CaSAPI system, implementing (a generalisation of) three existing computational mechanisms [8–10] for determining argumentatively whether potential beliefs can be deemed to be acceptable and, if so, for computing supports for them. These mechanisms are defined in terms of dialectical disputes amongst two fictional agents: a proponent agent, eager to determine the acceptability of ...
متن کاملThe Place and Influence of Intuition in the Creativity of the Architecture Designing Process
The work of architecture is believed to depend on the governing thought in the process of architectural designing. This thought can be analyzed, developed, experienced, and interpreted. Creativity is the only domineering force in the idea of designing which is in quest for freeing architecture from the routine methods, and also finding the novel systems to answer the questions in architecture. ...
متن کاملAn argumentation-based dialogue system for human-robot collaboration
Human-robot collaboration may fail due to conflicts in beliefs or plans between cooperating partners, or due to robot errors. Dialogue is an intuitive way to resolve such conflicts due to miscommunication. The research demonstrated here explores the notion of using argumentation-based dialogue for human-robot interaction. The demonstration presents a proof-of-concept prototype of a logic-based ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Journal of experimental psychology. General
دوره 146 7 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2017