FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2369393252> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2369393252 abstract "Inductive reasoning is an activity of the mind that takes one from the observed to the unobserved.For category-based induction,there are the following robust experimental results.For inference from a single premise,(1)similarity between the premise and conclusion categories promotes induction,(2)typicality of the premise category promotes induction,(3)homogeneity of the conclusion category promotes induction,(4)switching the premise and conclusion categories can lead to arguments with different inductive strength(i.e.,an asymmetrical phenomenon),and(5)inductive strength increases with connection strength between induction features and relevant features.For inference from multiple premises,(6)a greater number of premises promotes induction,and(7)a greater diversity of premises promotes induction.Moreover,(8)contents of induction features affect inductive inference.For these phenomena,there are four major descriptive explanations:the similarity-coverage model(Osherson,et al.,1990),the feature-based induction model(Sloman,1993),the relevance theory of induction(Medin,2003),and the relevance similarity model of feature induction(Wang,2006).None of these explanations can explain all the aforementioned inductive phenomena.Either of the similarity-coverage model or the feature-based induction model can at most explain items(1),(2),(4),(6),and(7)above.These models are limited because they do not embody the essence of the mostly general inductive phenomena inherent in inductive reasoning-according to some category or feature sample relevant to an induction feature-to infer the possibility that a conclusion category has the induction feature.The author proposes a sampling theory of inductive reasoning that argues human inductive reasoning can embody and conform to the essence.The sampling theory can explain(1),(2),(3),(4),(6),and(7)of the aforementioned inductive phenomena.Three major theories(the similarity-coverage model,the feature-based induction model,and the sampling theory)all seem to be able to explain phenomenon(4),but there has thus far been no discriminative test for these three theories.Two experiments were designed to serve as discriminative tests of the three theories;they had similar designs that used artificial categories as premise and conclusion categories.For example,the following two induction problems formed a pair comparison.Induction 1:It was formerly known:Insect A has features a,b,c,d,e,f.Insect B has features a,b,c,d,e,g,h,k,l,m.Now it is found that insect A has feature x.What is the possibility that insect B has feature x Induction 2:It was formerly known:Insect B has features a,b,c,d,e,g,h,k,l,m.Insect A has features a,b,c,d,e,f.Now it is found that insect B has feature x.What is the possibility that insect A has feature x For these two induction problems,there was a switch between the premise and conclusion categories.The three theories made different predictions for the size-order of the inductive strengths of the two inductions.The similarity-coverage model predicted that there would be no difference in inductive strength between the two inductions,because the similarity of the two kinds of insects was identical in the two inductions.The feature-based induction model predicted that the inductive strength of induction 2 would be larger than that of induction 1,according to the feature coverage of the premise categories over the conclusion categories.The sampling theory predicted that the inductive strength of induction 1 would be larger than that of induction 2,according to the proportion of features in the premise categories that transfer from premise categories to conclusion categories.Therefore,the three theories can be discriminatively tested by examining participants' inductive strengths would conform to which prediction.The results of the four paired comparisons in each experiment consistently conformed to the predictions made by the sampling theory.The results consistently support the sampling theory rather than the other two explanations.The other two explanations essentially cannot explain the asymmetrical phenomena in the two experiments.Therefore,the sampling theory has a greater scope of explanation than do the other descriptive explanations of inductive reasoning." @default.
• W2369393252 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2369393252 creator A5030202879 @default.
• W2369393252 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W2369393252 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2369393252 title "A sampling Theory of Inductive Reasoning" @default.
• W2369393252 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2369393252 type Work @default.
• W2369393252 sameAs 2369393252 @default.
• W2369393252 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2369393252 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2369393252 hasAuthorship W2369393252A5030202879 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C103278499 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C115961682 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C158154518 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C21563000 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C2776214188 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C2776401178 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C2778023277 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C103278499 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C111472728 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C115961682 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C138885662 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C154945302 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C158154518 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C17744445 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C199539241 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C21563000 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C2776214188 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C2776401178 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C2778023277 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C33923547 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C41008148 @default.
• W2369393252 hasConceptScore W2369393252C41895202 @default.
• W2369393252 hasLocation W23693932521 @default.
• W2369393252 hasOpenAccess W2369393252 @default.
• W2369393252 hasPrimaryLocation W23693932521 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W1516525622 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W1971734866 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W1996682480 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2031727930 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2045024942 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2047047027 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2048039525 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2051518763 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2056303121 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2084396817 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2090824959 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2095239317 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2105358523 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2107154301 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2121978552 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2526194391 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2586333145 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W282092310 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W3192150284 @default.
• W2369393252 hasRelatedWork W2531411008 @default.
• W2369393252 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2369393252 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2369393252 magId "2369393252" @default.
• W2369393252 workType "article" @default.