Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):233-248 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX


We propose a critique ofnormativism, defined as the idea that human thinking reflects a normative system against which it should be measured and judged. We analyze the methodological problems associated with normativism, proposing that it invites the controversial “is-ought” inference, much contested in the philosophical literature. This problem is triggered when there are competing normative accounts, as empirical evidence can help arbitrate between descriptive theories, but not between normative systems. Drawing on linguistics as a model, we propose that a clear distinction between normative systems and competence theories is essential, arguing that equating them invites an “is-ought” inference: to wit, supporting normative “ought” theories with empirical “is” evidence. We analyze in detail two research programmes with normativist features – Oaksford and Chater's rational analysis and Stanovich and West's individual differences approach – demonstrating how, in each case, equating norm and competence leads to an is-ought inference. Normativism triggers a host of research biases in the psychology of reasoning and decision making: focusing on untrained participants and novel problems, analyzing psychological processes in terms of their normative correlates, and neglecting philosophically significant paradigms when they do not supply clear standards for normative judgement. For example, in a dual-process framework, normativism can lead to a fallacious “ought-is” inference, in which normative responses are taken as diagnostic of analytic reasoning. We propose that little can be gained from normativism that cannot be achieved by descriptivist computational-level analysis, illustrating our position with Hypothetical Thinking Theory and the theory of the suppositional conditional. We conclude that descriptivism is a viable option, and that theories of higher mental processing would be better off freed from normative considerations.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,273

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

A role for normativism.Igor Douven - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):252-253.
A case for limited prescriptive normativism.Emmanuel M. Pothos & Jerome R. Busemeyer - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):264-265.
The historical and philosophical origins of normativism.Catarina Dutilh Novaes - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):253-254.
Norms, goals, and the study of thinking.Raymond S. Nickerson - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):261-262.
Norms for reasoning about decisions.Jean-François Bonnefon - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):249-250.
Against causal descriptivism.Panu Raatikainen - 2006 - Mind and Society 5 (1):78-84.
Descriptivism, rigidified and anchored.Philip Pettit - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 118 (1-2):323-338.


Added to PP

23 (#558,707)

6 months
1 (#864,772)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?