A commentary on Mel Rutherford’s ‘On the use and misuse of the “two children” brainteaser’

Pragmatics and Cognition 18 (1):175-179 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Rutherford criticizes the way some people have analyzed the 2-children problem, claiming that slight nuances in the problem’s formulation can change the correct answer. However, his own data demonstrate that even when there is a unique correct answer, participants give intuitive answers that differ from it systematically — replicating the data reported by those he criticizes. Thus, his critique reduces to an admonition to use care in formulating and analyzing this brainteaser — which is always a good idea — but contributes little what is known, analytically or empirically, about the 2-children problem.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,574

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Commentary on the "Family Rule".P. Alderson - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (6):497-498.
Doom or deliverance?Hugh Montefiore - 1972 - Manchester,: Manchester University Press.
Variation in juvenile dependence.Karen L. Kramer - 2002 - Human Nature 13 (2):299-325.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-18

Downloads
16 (#913,262)

6 months
3 (#984,719)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

How not to solve it.Amos Nathan - 1986 - Philosophy of Science 53 (1):114-119.
How to solve probability teasers.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1989 - Philosophy of Science 56 (2):348-358.

View all 6 references / Add more references