I am still without a computer, but will try to dictate more precisely, because I am going stir crazy not being able to communicate with friam. There is a huge literature in philosophy and cognitive science in which scientists ask people to make inferences and then fall over themselves laughing when their subjects make inferences that are not correct according to formal logic. Most of the examples that are familiar to me involved abduction which formal logicians seem to regard as a fallacy but which Peirce regards as a formally correct form of logic that is both probabilistic and weak. Here is an example from sobers book, Ockhams razors
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Philosophers asked subjects which of the following statements is more probable: One Linda is a bank teller. Two jLinda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. When subjects answer the latter, the philosophers fall all over themselves laughing because a conjunction can never be larger than its conjuncts. Analytical philosophy aside, what do we suppose is going on here.? I think the subjects have already abducted That the probability that Linda is a bank teller is vanishingly small, And so have rejected the Premises of the problem. Any wiser thoughts? Best my slurred speech and fat thumbs could do! Thanks for your patience. Nick. Sent from my Dumb Phone
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
