Traditionally, research on cognitive fallacies has pursued a normative approach, mainly aiming at identifying the main influences that lead to erroneous response behavior such as, for example, belief bias and confirmation bias, both of which have been shown to correlate with strategies of argumentation and motivational factors.
Although it seems natural to view cognitive fallacies as a deficient form of reasoning or an effect of misplaced “gut instinct”, there is good reason to assume that so-called cognitive fallacies are actually a natural side effect of the attempt of the human mind to create a coherent scenario when the available input is ambiguous enough to allow for the construction of various conceptual metaphors to serve as a guiding mindset for the process of reasoning.
In this paper I will reexamine previous explanations in the field of cognitive fallacies in order to shed new light on the psychological mechanisms behind erroneous response behavior by further developing ideas from metaphor theory (cf. Lakoff, /Núñez 2000) and mental space theory (cf. Fauconnier 1985).
Table of Contents
Summary
1. Introduction
2. The Metaphorical Foundation of Formal Rules of Derivation
3. Example: Belief Bias
4. Cognitive Representations of Syllogisms
5. Conclusion
6. Literature
Research Objectives and Key Themes
This work aims to re-examine cognitive fallacies not as irrational errors or deficits in reasoning ability, but as natural consequences of the human mind's attempt to construct coherent scenarios from ambiguous input. By applying container schema theory and mental space theory, the research investigates how individuals map linguistically presented information onto conceptual structures, arguing that apparent "errors" often arise from a rational, though situationally inadequate, preference for experience-based processing (System 1) over formal-logical processing (System 2).
- Analysis of the dual process theory in relation to reasoning errors.
- Application of Lakoff and Núñez's container schema theory to formal logic.
- Examination of Fauconnier’s mental space theory to explain cognitive bias.
- Evaluation of how individual cognitive resources influence the flexibility of reference strategies.
Excerpt from the Book
Example: Belief Bias
In a study by Evans/Barston/Pollard (cited by Evans 2004, p.137), test subjects were presented a number of classic syllogisms consisting of two premises and a conclusion. The test subjects were supposed to decide if the given conclusion was permissible or not. An example taken from Evans (2004, p.137):
(3) GIVEN No millionaires are hard workers Some rich people are hard workers DOES IT FOLLOW THAT Some millionaires are not rich people YES NO
In order to test to what extent test subjects allow themselves to be influenced by their belief in real-life correctness when assessing the formal permissiveness of conclusions, or in other words, to what extent test subjects had referred to their experience-based operational modus while processing, the questions were mixed up according to the dimensions valid/invalid and believable/unbelievable, resulting in four categories of items:
Summary of Chapters
Summary: Provides an overview of the normative approach to cognitive fallacies and introduces the hypothesis that fallacies are natural side effects of the mind's drive for coherence.
1. Introduction: Discusses the dual-process theory of human cognition and introduces classical reasoning tasks like the Wason selection task to illustrate how context influences logical accuracy.
2. The Metaphorical Foundation of Formal Rules of Derivation: Explores how basic spatial-physical terms and container schemas form the foundation for formal logical operations.
3. Example: Belief Bias: Analyzes specific studies where the believability of a statement interferes with an individual's ability to evaluate formal logical validity.
4. Cognitive Representations of Syllogisms: Examines how mental spaces and specific mapping strategies are used to resolve contradictory information during the evaluation of syllogisms.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, suggesting that research should focus on the prerequisites for flexible cognitive strategy use rather than on labeling fallacies as mere failures of rationality.
6. Literature: Lists the academic sources and references used throughout the study.
Keywords
metaphor, bias, mental space, cognitive fallacies, false conclusions, container schema, reasoning, dual process theory, syllogisms, logic, cognition, mapping, reference strategies, interpretation, validity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work focuses on understanding cognitive fallacies as the result of the human mind's attempt to create coherent scenarios, rather than viewing them as irrational mistakes.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include dual process theory (System 1 and System 2), container schema theory, mental space theory, and the impact of world knowledge on deductive reasoning.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if cognitive fallacies arise from an inadequate, though rational, application of experience-based problem-solving strategies when formal logic is required.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The work utilizes theoretical analysis based on cognitive linguistics and mental space theory, alongside an examination of existing empirical studies on belief bias.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the metaphorical foundations of logic, the role of belief bias in reasoning experiments, and the cognitive mapping of syllogisms into mental spaces.
What are the key terms that define this research?
Key terms include cognitive fallacies, container schemas, mental spaces, belief bias, dual process theory, and specific/unspecific interpretations.
How does the Access Principle relate to reasoning?
The Access Principle claims that an entity in one mental space, like reality, can be referred to in terms of its corresponding entity in a different space, such as a fictional space, facilitating the construction of coherent scenarios.
Why does the author prefer the term "reference-technical problem" over "irrational thinking"?
The author argues that "errors" often result from the cognitive effort required to switch between reference strategies, not from an inability to think rationally.
- Quote paper
- Patrick Kühnel (Author), 2015, The Truth Behind Errors of Reasoning. Cognitive Fallacies as a Matter of Conceptual Coherency, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/337345
