Why Does Similarity Correlate With Inductive Strength?
نویسندگان
چکیده
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that a robust predictor of the strength of an inductive argument is the similarity between the categories that are the focus of the induction. In this paper we evaluate why similarity is associated with the strength of such arguments. On one view, category similarity makes an argument strong because similarity is partially determined by features that are common to both categories, and the existence of these common features provides reason to think that the conclusion is justified. On another view, increased similarity may reflect few differences, so that there are not many reasons to think that the conclusion is unjustified. We evaluate this issue by examining how engagement in inductive reasoning affects the perceived similarity between categories. Our findings suggest that people attempt to find reasons to disbelieve the hypothesis suggested by an argument. They consider differences when evaluating inductions that posit an affirmative contingency, and consider similarities when evaluating inductions that posit a negative contingency. This is done independent of whether the induction is presented in argument form or in the form of a conditional statement, and independent of whether one is evaluating the truth or falsity of the conditional statement.
منابع مشابه
Relations between premise similarity and inductive strength.
According to the diversity principle, diverse evidence is strong evidence. There has been considerable evidence that people respect this principle in inductive reasoning. However, exceptions may be particularly informative. Medin, Coley, Storms, and Hayes (2003) introduced a relevance theory of inductive reasoning and used this theory to predict exceptions, including the nondiversity-by-propert...
متن کاملInferring knowledge of properties from judgments of similarity and argument strength
Psychological similarity has been invoked to explain many phenomena, including judgments of the strength of inductive arguments (Osherson et al., 1990). The present work follows the suggestion of Tenenbaum and Griffiths (2001) that judgments of similarity and judgments of argument strength cohere because they are essentially judgments of the same kind, which consult the same knowledge of proper...
متن کاملAbsence Makes the Thought Grow Stronger: Reducing Structural Overlap Can Increase Inductive Strength
Computational models of analogy have assumed that the strength of an inductive inference about the target is based directly on similarity of the analogs, and in particular on shared higher-order relations. However, in Experiment 1 we show that reducing analogical overlap by eliminating a higher-order causal relation (a preventive cause present in the source) from the target increased inductive ...
متن کاملSadder but Wiser Induction? Situation-Personality Interaction Revealed by an Inductive Reasoning Model
We have developed a computational model of inductive reasoning that includes both positive and negative premises (Sakamoto & Nakagawa, 2007; 2008). The model explains argument strength ratings in terms of two kinds of similarities; the similarity between positive premises and the conclusion, and the similarity between negative premises and the conclusion. In the model, the similarity functions ...
متن کامل