The appropriate methodology for psychological research depends on whether one is studying mental algorithms or their implementation. Mental algorithms are abstract specifications of the steps taken by procedures that run in the mind. Implementational issues concern the speed and reliability of these procedures. The algorithmic level can be explored only by studying across-task variation. This contrasts with psychology's dominant methodology of looking for within-task generalities, which is appropriate only for studying implementational issues.The implementation-algorithm distinction is related to a number of (...) other “levels” considered in cognitive science. Its realization in Anderson's ACT theory of cognition is discussed. Research at the algorithmic level is more promising because it is hard to make further fundamental scientific progress at the implementational level with the methodologies available. Protocol data, which are appropriate only for algorithm-level theories, provide a richer source than data at the implementational level. Research at the algorithmic level will also yield more insight into fundamental properties of human knowledge because it is the level at which significant learning transitions are defined.The best way to study the algorithmic level is to look for differential learning outcomes in pedagogical experiments that manipulate instructional experience. This provides control and prediction in realistically complex learning situations. The intelligent tutoring paradigm provides a particularly fruitful way to implement such experiments.The implications of this analysis for the issue of modularity of mind, the status of language, research on human/computer interaction, and connectionist models are also examined. (shrink)

In the 1970s, we conceived of a rule explanation as supplying the causal and social context that justifies a rule, an objective documentation for why a rule is correct. Today we would call such descriptions post-hoc design rationales, not proving the rules? correctness, but providing a means for later interpreting why the rule was written and facilitating later improvements.

This paper presents work in progress on artificial intelligence in medicine (AIM) within the larger context of cognitive science. It introduces and develops the notion ofemergence both as an inevitable evolution of artificial intelligence towards machine learning programs and as the result of a synergistic co-operation between the physician and the computer. From this perspective, the emergence of knowledge takes placein fine in the expert's mind and is enhanced both by computerised strategies of induction and deduction, and by software abilities (...) to dialogue, co-operate and function as a cognitive extension of the physician's intellectual capabilities. The proposed methodology gives the expert a prominent role which consists, first, of faithfully enunciating the descriptive features of his medical knowledge, thus giving the computer a precise description of his own perception of basic medicine, and secondly, of painstakingly gathering patients into computerised case bases which simulate exhaustive long-term memory. The AI capacities for knowledge elaboration are then triggered, giving rise to mathematically optimal diagnoses, prognoses, or treatment protocols which the physician may then evaluate, accept, reject, or adapt at his convenience, and finally append to a knowledge base. The idea of emergence embraces many issues concerning the purpose and intent of artificial intelligence in medical practice. Particularly, we address the representation problem as it is raised by classical decisional knowledge-based systems, and develop the notions of classifiers and hybrid systems as possible answers to this problem. Finally, since the whole methodology touches the problem of technological investment in health care, now inherent in modern medical practice, some ethical considerations accompany the exposé. (shrink)

Scientific and mathematical concepts are significantly different from everyday concepts and are notoriously difficult to learn. It is shown that particular instances of such concepts can be identified or generated by different possible modes of concept interpretation. Some of these modes use formally explicit knowledge and thought processes; others rely on less formal case‐based knowledge and more automatic recognition processes. The various modes differ in attainable precision, likely errors, and ease of use. A combination of such modes can be used (...) to formulate an “ideal” model for interpreting scientific concepts both reliably and efficiently. Comparisons are made with the actual concept interpretations of expert scientists and novice students. The discussion elucidates some cognitive and metacognitive reasons why the learning of scientific or mathematical concepts is difficult. It also suggests instructional guidelines for teaching such concepts more effectively. (shrink)

We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a problem. We examine a variety of arguments of (...) this sort, including argument from abductive classification, argument from causal classification, argument from analogy-based classification and arguments from classification based on generalizations. (shrink)

How do people make difficult decisions in situations involving substantial risk and uncertainty? In this study, we presented a difficult medical decision to three expert physicians in a combined “thinking aloud” and “cross examination” experiment. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using script analysis to observe the process of constructing and making the decision, and using referring phrase analysis to determine the representation of knowledge of likelihoods. These analyses are compared with a formal decision analysis of the same problem to highlight similarities (...) and differences. The process of making the decision resembles an incremental, sequential‐refinement planning algorithm, where a complex decision is broken into a sequence of choices to be made with a simplified description of the alternatives. This strategy results in certain kinds of relevant information being underweighted in the final decision. Knowledge of likelihood appears to be represented as symbolic descriptions capturing categorical and ordinal relations with “landrhark” likelihoods, only some of which are described numerically. Numerical probabilities, capable of being combined and compared arithmetically, were not observed. These observations suggest an explanation for the heuristics and biases in human decision making under uncertainty in terms of the processes that manipulate symbolic descriptions of likelihoods and construct plans of action for situations involving risk and uncertainty. (shrink)

In this article we describe two core ontologies of law that specify knowledge that is common to all domains of law. The first one, FOLaw describes and explains dependencies between types of knowledge in legal reasoning; the second one, LRI-Core ontology, captures the main concepts in legal information processing. Although FOLaw has shown to be of high practical value in various applied European ICT projects, its reuse is rather limited as it is rather concerned with the structure of legal reasoning (...) than with legal knowledge itself: as many other “legal core ontologies”, FOLaw is therefore rather an epistemological framework than an ontology. Therefore, we also developed LRI-Core. As we argue here that legal knowledge is based to a large extend on common-sense knowledge, LRI-Core is particularly inspired by research on abstract common-sense concepts. The main categories of LRI-Core are: physical, mental and abstract concepts. Roles cover in particular social worlds. Another special category are occurrences; terms that denote events and situations. We illustrate the use of LRI-Core with an ontology for Dutch criminal law, developed in the e-Court European project. (shrink)

We understand regulatory policy problems against the backdrop of existing implementations of a regulatory framework. There are argument schemes for proposing a policy and for criticising a proposal, rooted in a shared understanding that there is an existing regulatory framework which is implemented in social structures in society, yet has problems. The problems with the existing implementations may be attributed either to those implementations or to the constraints imposed by the regulatory framework. In this paper we propose that calls for (...) change of regulatory policy, and case-based and statistical evidence produced in support of policy proposals, are based in model-based problem solving activities. This perspective suggests schemes for a good argument pro or con a policy proposal, while avoiding the problem of backing up claims and evidence on the policy level with a conjectural deep model of the policy domain. (shrink)