Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:24:09.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One wrong does not justify another: Accepting dual processes by fallacy of false alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Gideon Keren ,
Iris van Rooij  and
Yaacov Schul
Gideon Keren
Affiliation:
Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The [email protected]@tue.nl
Iris van Rooij
Affiliation:
Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The [email protected]@tue.nl
Yaacov Schul
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barbey & Sloman (B&S) advocate a dual-process (two-system) approach by comparing it with an alternative perspective (ecological rationality), claiming that the latter is unwarranted. Rejecting this alternative approach cannot serve as sufficient evidence for the viability of the former.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 269 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clark, A. & Thornton, C. (1997) Trading spaces: Computation, representation, and the limits of uninformed learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20(1):57–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp. 49–81. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, G. & Schul, Y. (under review) Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-systems theories.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (1996) The base-rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19:1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1977) The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11:65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84(3):231–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996a) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119:3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:645–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed