Literature DB >> 35194767

The diversity principle and the evaluation of evidence.

Nathan Couch1.   

Abstract

The diversity principle-the intuitive notion that diverse evidence is, all else equal, more persuasive, suggestive, confirmatory, or otherwise better than less varied sets of evidence-is a clear component of scientific practice and endorsed by scientists and philosophers alike. A great body of psychological research on people's understanding and application of the diversity principle exists, yet it remains divided into multiple, distinct research communities, which often come to conflicting conclusions. One reason for this is that the range of tasks and domains investigated is appropriately wide. Without a common understanding of what it means for evidence to be diverse, however, it is hard to compare what are at times diverging results. To address this, I review three perspectives from philosophy on what makes diverse evidence valuable. I will use the perspectives to frame results from psychology and assess whether people understand the value of diverse evidence on both an intuitive and explicit level. My conclusions have a leveled optimism: While people are generally aware of the value of diverse evidence, they often struggle to apply what they know. I argue this is because people do not assess the diversity of their evidence as a matter of course but rely on its intuitive diversity as a cue to its evidential diversity. When this cue is absent, people can overlook otherwise obvious problems with their evidence. This has potential consequences for how people seek out, evaluate, and understand evidence from a variety of domains, but leaves open the possibility that various interventions-such as education or reminders to attend to the quality of evidence-may increase people's application of what they know.'
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Concepts and categories; High order cognition; Induction

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35194767     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02065-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  30 in total

1.  A bird's eye view: biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures.

Authors:  Jeremy N Bailenson; Michael S Shum; Scott Atran; Douglas L Medin; John D Coley
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2002-05

2.  Culture, category salience, and inductive reasoning.

Authors:  I Choi; R E Nisbett; E E Smith
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1997-12

3.  Simplicity and complexity preferences in causal explanation: An opponent heuristic account.

Authors:  Samuel G B Johnson; J J Valenti; Frank C Keil
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Diversity-based reasoning in children.

Authors:  E Heit; U Hahn
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning.

Authors:  E Heit; J Rubinstein
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Children's use of sample size and diversity information within basic-level categories.

Authors:  G Gutheil; S A Gelman
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1997-02

7.  Bayesian Occam's Razor Is a Razor of the People.

Authors:  Thomas Blanchard; Tania Lombrozo; Shaun Nichols
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-11-21

8.  Best, second-best, and good-enough explanations: How they matter to reasoning.

Authors:  Igor Douven; Patricia Mirabile
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality.

Authors:  Frank C. Keil
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Harvey; Daphne van den Berg; Jacintha Ellers; Remko Kampen; Thomas W Crowther; Peter Roessingh; Bart Verheggen; Rascha J M Nuijten; Eric Post; Stephan Lewandowsky; Ian Stirling; Meena Balgopal; Steven C Amstrup; Michael E Mann
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 8.589

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.