Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment

Abstract

This book presents a new approach to epistemology (the theory of human knowledge and reasoning). Its approach aims to liberate epistemology from the scholastic debates of standard analytic epistemology, and treat it as a branch of the philosophy of science. The approach is novel in its use of cost-benefit analysis to guide people facing real reasoning problems and in its framework for resolving normative disputes in psychology. Based on empirical data, the book shows how people can improve their reasoning by relying on Statistical Prediction Rules (SPRs). It then develops and articulates the positive core of the book. The view presented — Strategic Reliabilism — claims that epistemic excellence consists in the efficient allocation of cognitive resources to reliable reasoning strategies, applied to significant problems. The last third of the book develops the implications of this view for standard analytic epistemology; for resolving normative disputes in psychology; and for offering practical, concrete advice on how this theory can improve real people's reasoning.

Théories à processus duaux et théories de l’éducation : le cas de l’enseignement de la pensée critique et de la logique

“…Cette pause lui permet, lorsqu'il dispose des outils nécessaires, de réaliser que le théorème de Bayes doit être utilisée pour donner la réponse correcte, puis de l'utiliser afin de donner cette réponse correcte. Certains suggèrent même que dans toutes les situations faisant appel à des notions statistiques, les intuitions devraient être abandonnées au profit de règles formelles comme le théorème de Bayes (Bishop et Trout, 2005).…”

Mechanical/Algorithmic Versus Flexible/Creative Clinical Practice: How Underlying Principles Bridge the Gap

“…To combat the common errors in human judgment, a method called "Statistical Prediction Rules" (SPR; Bishop & Trout, 2004;Dawes, 2002;Grove & Meehl, 1996) has been developed. An SPR is a mechanical formula (actuarial or algorithmic model) that, when based on the same evidence and compared to human experts, can outperform human judgment in almost any area (e.g., Bishop & Trout, 2002;Dawes, 2002).…”

Simple Tools with Nontrivial Implications for Assessment of Hypothesis-Evidence Relationships: The Interrogator’s Fallacy

“…This material involves two distinct but related background issues: (1) purely formal results derived from mathematical probability as axiomatized by Kolomorgorov [13] and (2) the interpretation of these results. Generally speaking, there is agreement concerning the validity of the mathematical derivation of probability formulas and relations.…”