Cognitive theories for reasoning are about understanding how humans come to conclusions from a set of premises. Starting from hypothetical thoughts, we are interested which are the implications behind basic everyday language and how do we reason with them. A widely studied topic is whether cognitive theories can account for typical reasoning tasks and be confirmed by own empirical experiments. This paper takes a different view and we do not propose a theory, but instead take findings from the literature and show how these, formalized as cognitive principles within a logical framework, can establish a quantitative notion of reasoning, which we call plausibility. For this purpose, we employ techniques from non-monotonic reasoning and computer science, namely, a solving paradigm called answer set programming (ASP). Finally, we can fruitfully use plausibility reasoning in ASP to test the effects of an existing experiment and explain different majority responses.
翻译:用于推理的认知理论是了解人类如何从一系列前提下得出结论。 从假设的思维开始,我们感兴趣的是基本日常语言背后的含义,以及我们如何理解这些含义。一个广泛研究的主题是认知理论能否解释典型的推理任务并由自己的实验证实。本文采取不同的观点,我们不提出理论,而是从文献中得出结论,并表明这些在逻辑框架内正式确定为认知原则的理论如何能够确立一个定量推理概念,我们称之为合理性。为此目的,我们采用非口头推理和计算机科学的技术,即所谓的答案组合编程(ASP)的解析范式。最后,我们可以富有成效地利用ASP的可信推理来测试现有实验的效果,并解释不同的多数反应。