| Title: | Rationality in human nonmonotonic inference |
| Authors: | Rui Da Silva Neves, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Eric Raufaste |
| Series: | Linköping Electronic Articles
in Computer and Information Science ISSN 1401-9841 |
| Issue: | Vol. 5 (2000), No. 026 |
| URL: | http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/2000/026/ |
| Abstract: | This article tests human inference rationality when dealing
with default rules. To study human rationality, psychologists currently
use classical models of logic or probability theory as normative models
for evaluating human ability to reason rationally. Our position is that
this approach is convincing, but only manages to capture a specific case
of inferential ability with little regard to conditions of everyday reasoning.
We propose that the most general case to be considered is inference with
imperfect knowledge - in the present case restricted to uncertain knowledge
- and that a natural framework for testing the rationality of plausible
reasoning is System P. This system provides rational postulates for nonmonotonic
inference.
The semantic of the nonmonotonic inference is given by a possibilistic constraint introduced by Dubois and Prade (1991). This constraint states that a rule p ( q is a plausible rule if "the degree to which p ( q is possible" is greater than "the degree to which p ( (q is possible". Given the choice of this constraint, we study two supplementary postulates of rationality. Eighty-eight subjects participated in an experiment whose results confirm - provided that reflexivity and left logical equivalence would be tested in a further experiment - the rationality of human nonmonotonic inference according to the rational postulates of System P. |
|---|
| Original publication 2000-12-30 |
Postscript
part I -- Checksum
Checksum (old) Information about recalculation of checksum PDF part II -- Checksum II Checksum II (old) Information about recalculation of checksum |
|---|