This paper aims to shed light on the nature of belief and provide support to the view that I call ‘Minimalism’. It shows that Minimalism is better equipped than the traditional approach to separating belief from imagination and addressing cases of belief’s evidence- resistance. The key claim of the paper is that no matter how epistemically irrational humans’ beliefs are, they always retain a minimal level of rationality.

Many compelling examples have recently been provided in which people can achieve impressive epistemic success, e.g. draw highly accurate inferences, by using simple heuristics and very little information. This is possible by taking advantage of the features of the environment. The examples suggest an easy and appealing naturalization of rationality: on the one hand, people clearly can apply simple heuristics, and on the other hand, they intuitively ought do so when this brings them high accuracy at little cost.. The ‘ought-can’ (...) principle is satisfied, and rationality is meaningfully normative. We show, however, that this naturalization program is endangered by a computational wrinkle in the adaptation process taken to be responsible for this heuristics-based (‘ecological’) rationality: for the adaptation process to guarantee even minimal rationality, it requires astronomical computational resources, making the problem intractable. We consider various plausible auxiliary assumptions in attempt to remove this obstacle, and show that they do not succeed; intractability is a robust property of adaptation. We discuss the implications of our findings for the project of naturalizing rationality. (shrink)

Cushman characterizes rationalization as the inverse of rational reasoning, but this distinction is psychologically questionable. Coherence-based reasoning highlights a subtler form of bidirectionality: By distorting task attributes to make one course of action appear superior to its rivals, a patina of rationality is bestowed on the choice. This mechanism drives choice and action, rather than just following in their wake.

Past research suggests that people process verbal quantifiers differently from numerical ones, but this suggestion has yet to be formally tested. Drawing from traditional correlates of dual-process...

Plausibly, how much is at stake in some salient practical task can affect how generously people ascribe knowledge of task-relevant facts. There is a metaphysical puzzle about this phenomenon, and an empirical puzzle. Metaphysically: there are competing theories about when and how practical stakes affect whether it is correct to ascribe knowledge. Which of these theories is the right one? Empirically: experimental philosophy has struggled to find a stakes-effect on people’s knowledge ascriptions. Is the alleged phenomenon just a philosopher’s fantasy? (...) I propose a new psychological account of when and why people’s knowledge ascriptions are sensitive to stakes. My hypothesis is motivated by empirical research on how people’s judgements are sensitive to their social context. Specifically, people’s evaluations are sensitive to their ‘psychological distance’ from the scenarios they are considering. When using ‘fixed-evidence probes’, experimental philosophy has found that what’s at stake for a fictional character in a made-up scenario has little or no effect on how participants ascribe knowledge to them. My hypothesis predicts this finding: the scenarios are too ‘psychologically distant’ to participants. Our empirical puzzle is resolved: the stakes-effect often present in the wild won’t be present in vignette studies. (This illustrates a widespread problem with X-phi vignette studies: if people might judge differently in other social contexts, we can’t generalize from the results of these experiments. That is, vignette studies are of doubtful ‘external validity’.) The hypothesis also resolves our metaphysical puzzle. It predicts that people do not ascribe knowledge in a way deemed correct by any of the standard philosophical views, namely classical invariantism, interest-relative invariantism, and contextualism. Our knowledge ascriptions shift around in the way that’s most useful for social beings like us, and this pattern in our judgements can only be endorsed by a genuinely relativist metaphysics for knowledge. (shrink)

ABSTRACTHigh-level judgement and decision-making tasks display dynamic bidirectional relationships in which salient cues determine how responses are evaluated by decision-makers, and these responses in turn determine the cues that are considered. In this paper, we propose Kosko's bidirectional associative memory network, a minimal two-layer recurrent neural network, as a mathematically tractable toy model with which the properties of existing bidirectional models, and the behavioural implications of these properties, can be studied. We first derive results regarding the dynamics of the BAM (...) network, and then show how these results can be used to provide an analytically sound explanation for a number of important findings, including coherence shifts in judgement and choice, anchoring effects, and reference point effects. (shrink)

Our life is full of choices—choices that differ, among others, in the amount of information on which they are based. For instance, when facing a choice between two options that differ on several decision-relevant attributes, one could rely on the most relevant attribute only to make the decision, or one could integrate information from several attributes and base the choice on that combined information. When a decision maker bases her choice on the most relevant attribute only, however, what does this (...) mean with regard to the amount of information this decision maker had processed prior to making the decision: did she process information about the most relevant attribute only and ignored additional information, or did she consider additional pieces of information as well but let her choice nonetheless be guided by only the most relevant attribute? Understanding the cognitive processes underlying those choices that are based primarily on the most relevant attribute is the main subject of this thesis, in particular, the question of whether or not for these choices additional information is ignored, and if additional information is not ignored, how is this information being processed? The empirical results of several experiments reported here show that decision makers do not ignore information when this information is fully shown to them or when decision accuracy is of importance. Moreover, even when information has to be retrieved from memory, information is not completely ignored. Additionally, first evidence was found that decision makers inhibit information when it conflicts with their decisions. Finally, results of one experiment show that the likelihood of relying on only one piece of information increases under ego-depletion. (shrink)