Open Journal of Philosophy 2013. Vol.3, No.2, 329336 Published Online May 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.32050 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 329 Irrationality ReExamined: A Few Comments on the Conjunction Fallacy Michael Aristidou Mathematics and Natural Sciences, American University of Kuwait, Safat, Kuwait Email: maristidou@auk.edu.kw Received December 3rd, 2012; revised January 5th, 2013; accepted January 19th, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Michael Aristidou. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In this paper, I argue that the probability model used to infer irrationality for the subjects in the famous Linda problem is not appropriate, and I suggest different approaches based on fuzzy reasoning models. My line of argument is twofold: 1) If the term “probability” is understood properly (mathematically), then the experimenters used the wrong model. 2) If the term “probability” is understood casually (non mathematically), then alternative models perhaps should be used to justify the subjects’ responses. The objective is to experiment with new ways of looking at irrationality and raise a discussion regarding the relation between irrationality, reasoning errors and logical models that are used as frameworks to study irrationality. Keywords: Probability; Rationality; Irrationality; Fuzzy; Conjunction; Fallacy Introduction To examine how humans reason, psychologists have con ducted a series of experiments, the results of which demonstrate a high degree of deviation in “rationality” from the so called normative standards. Some of these experiments are: 1) The Wason’s Card Selection Task1 (Wason and JohnsonLaird, 1972) and 2) Linda’s Conjunction Fallacy (Tversky & Kahne man, 1982). The former was reformulated by Oaksford and Chater (1998) using Probability Theory and ultimately the “er ror” in judgment was justified, and further it was actually claimed that it was a “good” error. Here, I will be concerned with the latter, and I will argue that although the conjunction experiment is quite useful in giving an insight into human cog nitive capacities, it is not sufficient to establish irrationality on behalf of humans. It is good enough perhaps to cast a doubt on the claim that humans are a priori, or mostly, rational (David son, 1984: pp. 183198, 1982a: pp. 302303). Not to be accused that I operate in the context of an exclusivi st true/false dile mma, that only considers extreme cases (either fully rational or com pletely irrational), I claim from the beginning that surely ra tionality admits of degrees, and humans display a high degree of rationality on many occasions, and low degree on many oth ers. 1In this experiment, subjects have to pick those cards out of four that makes a certain rule true or false. The four cards on the side that the subjects can see have a “4”, “7”, “A” and “D” written on them. The rule is “If a card has a vowel on the one side then it has an even number on the other.” On the question of which cards’ other side one has to see in order to falsify the rule, around 90% of the subjects responded incorrectly “A” and “4” where the right answer is “A” and “7”, This controversial experiment revealed some flaw in the deductive capacities of humans, but it surprised also researchers much more when a more concrete version of i t ( Robertson, 1999: pp. 6970), dealing with everyday matters dramatically increased the correct responses that people gave. For example, subjects did far better when they were asked to play the role of a policeman that is trying to find whether the law of under aged drinking has been violated. The subject has to go in a bar, where at one of the tables four people are sitting. The first person is 15 years old, the second is 45 years old, the third is drinking lemonade and the fourth person is drinking beer. The rule is “If a erson is under 18 years old, then she is not allowed to drink alcohol.” Note that this task is nothing but the Wason’s selection task stated above, where “lemonade” corresponds to “4”,“beer” to “7”, “A” to “15” and “45” to “D.” On the question of what one has to do in order to check th e rule, mos t of t he subj ects foun d the ri ght answ er which i s check the 15year old, and check the beer to see by who is being drunk. The reason why subjects found the concrete version of Wason’s Task easier is, accordin g to Roberston , that “certai n contexts made the selectio n task much easier because the task fitted in with people’s previously constructed sche mas about those contexts”(Roberston, 1999: p. 71). People are more familiar with permission/obligation contexts, therefore it was easier for them find the correct answer, namely “15” and “beer”,since the reasoning that generates those answers is clo ser to the permission/obligation schema. The Conjunction Fallacy If the probabilistic approach was effective on selection tasks, such as Wason’s Task, it does not necessarily imply that the same probabilistic techniques might work in other reasoning tasks too. Proponents of the probabilistic approach think per haps that probabilistic reasoning is at the heart of human rea soning (carried away by its success on the Wason’s Task), but, as Tversky and Kahneman (1982) revealed, this is not the case. People tend to violate standard probability rules in many cir cumstances and “irrationalities” are apparent, even when adopt ing a probabilistic framework to explain reasoning. For example, people seem to conform to the conjunction fal lacy in probability judgments. The most famous example per haps is this: Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright.
M. ARISTIDOU She majored in Philosophy. As a student, she was deeply conce rned with issue s of disc riminat ion and soci al justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations (Tver sky & Kahneman, 1982: p. 361). The subjects were asked to state which is the most probable from the following five statements: 1) Linda is a teacher in an e l e m e nt a ry school. 2) Linda is a bank teller. 3) Linda works in a bookstore and takes yoga classes. 4) Linda is active in the feminist movement. 5) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist move ment. The majority of the subjects chose 5) as more probable that 2), violating a fundamental law of probability: that the prob ability of a conjunction must be less (or equal) than the prob ability of its conjuncts. This, according to the experimenters, is an “irrationality” case. But is it? One could say that the above “irrationalities” are irrationalities with respect to the approach one chooses to model human reasoning. Oaksford and Chater, commending on Tversky and Kahneman’s results, argue that: If this [mismatch of probability and rationality]2 is correct, then the whole idea of rational models of cognition is mis guided: cognition simply is not rational (Oaksford & Chater, 1998: p. 18). One could easily disagree with this. If human reasoning fails to be modeled or formalized by probability theory, does this make human reasoning irrational? Humans might seem “irra tional” with respect to probabilistic systems of inference, but we have no reason to believe that these are the only systems that can give an account of human reasoning. There can be alternative systems that come closer to how humans reason and explain many of the alleged irrationalities that resulted from the experiments. For example, a Fuzzy Reasoning System3 could be, in the words of Stich, a “pragmatically superior alternative” to the probability system mentioned above. In other words, there could be better systems of inference relative to a problem, as some systems (given a problem) might be more general and provide more explanatory frameworks. They could also take into consideration the weight of some information and its rele vance. For example, words like “discrimination” and “social justice”, included in the information about Linda, are words that indicate relevance or irrelevance to choices 2) and 5), a fact that probability theory ignores. Also, words like “very” and “deeply” indicate weight, or a degree, that certain information about Linda bear in relation to choices 2) and 5), a fact that probability theory also ignores. Stich’s Theory Davidson’s Principle of Charity states that “one should in terpret an agent’s utterances in such a way that most of her assertions turn out to be true and most of her inferences turn out to be rational” (Davidson, 1984: pp. 183198, 1982a, pp. 302 303). In other words, when we are interpreting someone and we find that his reasoning deviates too much from what people usually hold as “rational”, then it is more likely, according to Davidson, that we are interpreting the subject incorrectly, and less likely that the subject is irrational (Davidson, 1982a: p. 303). Inference that is frequently irrational, according to Davidson, is conceptually impossible. That is because inference—a proc ess that generates beliefs—must have high levels of rationality and truth. But, how could one link rationality with beli efs? The keyword is interpretation, and Davidson’s argument (Davidson, 1982a: pp. 302303, 1982b: p. 327; 1984: pp. 195198, p. 170) revolves around the following idea: the meaning of a word cannot be fixed if what the agent utters by that word is not in accord with what he means by that word and what he believes about that word. According to Davidson, an agent is irrational if he somehow generates beliefs that do not cohere, or are not consistent, with the pattern of his beliefs. Davidson’s approach to rationality, through interpretation, demands high degrees of consistency. Hence, any approach that allows much inconsistency is not ac ceptable to Davidson. That is clear when he says that: “… in consistency breeds unintelligibility” (Davidson, 1982a: p. 303), and when he says: If we are intelligently to attribute attitudes and beliefs …, then we are committed to finding in the pattern of behavior, belief, and desire a large degree of rationality and consistency (Davidson, 1980: p. 237). Stich argues (Stich, 1990: pp. 15,17) that if Davidson’s posi tion is true then the following problems arise: 1) Our ability to explore irrationality empirically is under mined; hence we are losing a good insight into human cogni tion, since the interpreters are the ones most probably mistaken. 2) The claim that bad reasoning is conceptually impossible leads to a normative theory of rationality of no practical impor tance, since the theory turns its back on the empirical results. Stich thinks that Davidson is right to say that content and ra tional reasoning are linked, but wrong in the assumption that there is only one type of rational reasoning. The latter assump tion is something that Stich opposes, since he claims that it is not the case that there are no alternative systems of reasoning that are all rational. This is something that Stich calls Norma tive Cognitive Pluralism. But how could one decide then that a system S is a rational cognitive system? Stich mentions Goodman’s attempts to de scribe a procedure (or a test) that a system of inferential rules should pass, in order to count as rational. But as Stich observes, it is very difficult to discern the relation between rationality and “appropriate” test, because we basically assume a priori that the test itself is appropriate. Hence one needs a more realistic ac count of what makes a system rational. Perhaps a middle ground could be found. Davidson recognizes high degrees of consistency, but nevertheless speaks of “degrees” and not ab solute consistency. Also he alerts us on the conceptual difficul ties of inference being frequently irrational. Stich demands a more realistic system of inference, which possibly considers relevance of data, and is more explanatory on how actually humans reason in praxis and not normatively. A fuzzy system could be such a system. I do not claim that this is the only cor rect way to go, but based on the nature of the problem at hand (Linda’s Problem, which contains fuzzy parameters) it seems that it is at least m o re explanatory. 2My italics. 3By fuzzy reasoning system I mean broadly any system of inference that takes into consideration relevance of data, imprecision, subjectivity, percep tion ased information, and is closer to how humans actually reason, and not how they “ought” to reason. For more on Fuzzy Reasoning see Siler and Buckley (2004). Harten (2008) in a Master’s thesis examines a variety ap roaches in solving the conjunction fallacy and he concludes that fuzzy theory made progress on the issue but did not resolve it in all cases. Instead he ro oses a uantum robabilit a roach. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 330
M. ARISTIDOU A Fuzzy Model Perhaps? I mentioned previously that assuming a probabilistic way of thinking, the “irrationality” appeared in Wason’s Cards Task was in a way explained away. That is, humans seem quite ra tional if we ascribe to them a probabilistic way of thinking rather than a propositionallogic way of thinking. But how about the “irrationality” appearing in Tversky and Khaneman’s Linda problem? Could that be set in a framework in which, if not to ascribe rationality to the responders, at least explain their error in a rational manner? It is true that the subjects erred (probabilistically?), but could one at least, suggest a formal model that would explain their reasoning? As Oaksford and Chater did in the Wason Task, to some extent, one could justify people’s choice of premise 5) over 2) in the Linda Problem by considering a non  c l a ss i c a l a p p r oach to the probl e m . It is important to clarify that the reason I suggest another model is not because I want to render humans apriori rational or defend their judgment. It is simply because the (classical) probability model that was used here seems to be completely inappropriate for the problem at hand. Hertwig and Gigerenzer (1999: pp. 276278), tried to explain the fallacy indicating the ambiguity of the word “probability”. I agree to a large extent, but I actually also claim that if indeed by “probability” the sub jects understood the (classical) mathematical probability, as the examiners clearly intended, then the fault still lies more with the examiners as classical probability is not the right model to formulate this particular problem. The reason is because a good amount of data that refer to Linda are fuzzy data, including the conjunctive statement 5). For example, from the description of Linda, it is clear that her being “outspoken”, “very bright”, and “deeply concerned with discrimination and justice issues” are all fuzzy data. Also, one of the conjuncts in statement 5), namely “active in the feminist movement”, is also fuzzy, which makes the whole statement 5) a fuzzy statement. So, it is not just that the data did not entered the probability calculus in this problem, as Hertwig and Gigerenzer (1999: p. 276) correctly pointed out, it is also that it is the wrong probability model to account for those data. The appropriate model for the problem is Fuzzy Probability (Zadeh, 1968, 1984; Buckley, 2010) which extends classical probability as it accounts also for fuzzy events. It is also sensi tive to the degrees of relevance and membership of certain ele ments in certain sets. I will not get into the mathematical tech nicalities, as it is beyond the scope of this paper, but it should be noted that the conjunction law should also apply in the fuzzy probability case (as the latter generalizes the classical case), and the experimenter should be aware of that when using the ap propriate model. So, the only problem, as we said, is that fuzzy probability is supposed to generalize, not to reject classical probability, so any rule true in the later (such as P(A and B) < P(A)) must be also true in the former. Hence, in fuzzy probability Pf(A and B) < Pf(A) also applies. It seems that the experimenters might be correct after all. But, it also seems that they were unaware of the following three cases: 1) P(A and B) < P(A) where A, B crisp, 2) P(A and B) < P(A) where A, B fuzzy, 3) Pf(A and B) < Pf(A) where A, B fuzzy. Randomness is distinguished from fuzziness as a form of uncertainly (Kosko, 1990). Obviously, the experimenters used case 1) but this is not the right case (considering the problem) despite of the fact that all three cases render the same result. So, it is possible that humans are sus ceptible to the conjunction fallacy, probability errors, or as Gould (1992: p. 469) said that “our minds are not built to work by the rules of probability”, as the numerous experiments show4. But, the original Linda problem has not showed that yet, as it is essentially a fuzzy problem and is using the wrong probability calculus. It is worth noticing, by the way, that most variations of the Linda problem in the literature that came to my attention are crisp versions, or do not have the degree of fuzziness as the original Linda proble m (Tversky & Kahneman, 19 82, 1983; Bar Hillel & Nater, 1993; Tentori et al., 2004). One could get into the technicalities and certainly show that indeed Pf(A and B) < Pf(A), where A, B fuzzy, but we will not do it here, as it is beyond the scope of this paper. It seems also a bit pointless, as even if it is true, what exactly would this fact say on the issue of rationality? Would it necessarily imply that humans are irrational? Leaving aside broader objections to the notion of probability per se, the question still remains: How exactly probability, crisp or fuzzy, re lates to human reasoning? Is even the term “probability” the appropriate term to be ana lyzed here, in the example of Linda? Is this term what the sub jects understood and interpreted? It is possible though, as Hertwig and Gigerenzer (1999: pp. 276278) suggest, that mathematical probability was not what was understood in the experiment, assuming that the relevance maxim applied. Then, I would like to suggest the following approach (“Fuzzy Membership/Relevance Interpretation”) as an alternative to the mathematical interpretation of probability. It is possible that the subjects interpreted “Linda most probably is” as “Linda most likely belongs” (or “most likely member of”)5, and if that is the case, then the following (fuzzy, but nonprobabilistic) scenario might be plausible: Let us view Linda as a (fuzzy) set of properties, i.e. as the set L = {Phil, Discr, Int, Outsp, …etc}, where Phil = majored in Philosophy, Discr = concerned with discrimination issues and social justice, etc. The crucial properties of “being a bank teller” and “being a bank teller and active in the feminist movement” denote them by B and BF, respectively. The point is what is the relation of the B and BF to L. In other words, qualitatively and quantitatively speaking, how, which, and how many of the properties that characterize L relate to the B and BF. Now, based on the relation “relevant things go with rele vant things”6 which seems consistent also with neuroscientific evidence (Nielsen, 2003: pp. 118119), it is more likely that BF relates more to L, casually, on the basis that usually less Phi losophy majors become bank tellers, and usually more people that are “deeply” concerned with issues of discrimination, etc, are active membe rs of feminist movements. Do B and BF relate to any of the properties of Linda? In virtue of “being active in the feminist movement”, yes, to some degree BF does relate. 4Also, in Manktelow (2012: p. 245), even though he advocates the probabil istic paradigm, he states that “these formal systems ask too much of ordinary minds”. 5Or ignored the “probability” term altogether as irrelevant, and simply looked for relevance (likelihood, membership, etc). After all, these assess ments about people in everyday life are not done by throwing dice. 6That’s a very realistic classification, since humans tend to classify things that way. As Nielsen says: “For example, if the first three words (the as sumed facts of the consensus building process) are down the garden, con sensus building is then carried on the fourth (answer) region to yield an answer token, which turns out to be (in our system), path. This fourword sequence actually occurred in our training cor us. If we then blank out the token for the word path and repeat the thought process, the next word ob tained is lane. (Nielsen, 2003: pp. 118119). Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 331
M. ARISTIDOU On the other hand, B does not seem to relate much. This deter mination probably strikes one as too subjective, but, that is exactly the point on why a fuzzy model (not necessarily fuzzy probabilistic) might be better. It allows for subjective judgment and accounts for perceptionbased information and fuzzy data. The subjects in the experiment had exactly this to do: a sub jective judgment given fuzzy data. Therefore, one could claim that there was some rational basis for people choosing state ment 5) over 2) in the Linda problem. More precisely, and without getting too technical, one could suggest the following model of fuzzy reasoning (generalized modus ponens) which incorporates how humans tend to classify things based on membership and relevancy: If x is A, then y is B x is A' ………. y is B' where x, y are variables taking values from the universal sets X and Y, A and A' are fuzzy sets in X, and B, B' are fuzzy sets on Y. The above is quite useful for modeling human common sense reasoning, which is usually reasoning in fuzzy environments. For example: If a book is large, then it is expensive Book x is fairly large ………. Book x is fairly expensive Conclusion B’ is calculated for any y in Y by the formula: maxmin,x , in xAxIAB xX y usually referred to as the compositional rule of inference (Klir et al., 1997: p. 212), where I is an appropriate fuzzy implica tion7. For simplicity and economy in calculations, we usually adopt the matrix f o r mat: AI RoR in order to compute the conclusion B', where “o” is the max min operation8. In regards to the Linda problem, we basically follow the “guessing game” application9 in Tanaka (1996: p. 76) mod ifying things slightly. Instead of implication I will generalize to relevancy (they are both types of relations). In other words, instead of whether Phil implies B and to what degree, for ex ample, I will check whether Phil is relevant to B and to what degree. The way I will produce the relation RI (hereafter R) will be empirically (i.e. experimentally), and I will only be con cerned with two of the crucial properties of Linda, namely “Philosophy major” and “deeply concerned with discrimination issues and social justice”. By “empirically”, I mean how sub jects would actually infer (not how they supposedly ought to infer) based on their life knowledge and experience, and the specific data given. I explain: Let X = {B, BF}, where B = bank teller, BF = bank teller and feminist, and Y = {Phil, Discr} where Phil = majored in Phi losophy, Discr = concerned with discrimination issues and so cial justice. Then, given the data and people’s prior knowledge and experience we have the following relation R: PhilDiscr B 00.2 RBF 0.30.8 where each entry shows the degree of relevance between two parameters and was determined10 practically as follows: A group of 10 college students were asked, to their knowl edge, to correlate with a line and a percentage degree (degree of relevancy) the following two columns: BPhil BF Int Outs p Discr Prot where the right column clearly contains some of the properties of Linda. The average rounded percentage (normalized to 1) correlating Phil and Discr to B and BF are shown in R above. Given the description of Linda, a fair assessment regarding properties Phil and Discr would be: PhilDiscr 10.9L 7Say Lukasiewicz’s or Mandami’s implication, etc. But, as known, there is no a priori justification on how to interpret an implication, or any logical connective for that matter. At best, one tries to capture some basic intuition of what a true or partially true proposition is, with respect to certain phe nomena or applications at hand. One could actually push the argument all the way and say that experience would be the only arbitrator of truth to an implication. For example, consider the implication: “If I am a Philosophy major, then I am an active feminist.” The truth or partial truth of this could only be assessed by experience. In other words if actually, if to our knowl edge, there are philosophy majors who are active feminists, to what degree they are active, how Philosophy relates or not to feminism so we can put weight to future assessme nts, etc. Probability here has little to te l l us . 8It works as follows: aa bcab bd aba b ca dc cb dd cdc d 9“Sally is nearsighted and colorblind. When she goes to the fruit market, where fru its are placed on high shelves , she caanot s ee them very wel l. She can only recognize the size and blurred shape of the fruits. Sally lived in such a world for 20 years and now she has some knowledge about the fea tures of the fruits. For example, tangerines are round and relatively small. When Sally says ‘quite round and quite large’, can you guess what fruit she sees?” (the solution in T anaka, 1996 : p. 76). 10More rigorously, one could define a relevance relation Y RX between two sets X and Y (“X is relevant to Y”) to be the matrix whose entries are given by the relevance operator j Yy ij RX x i , where j i is the degree of relevance of xi to yj with respect to some attributes and based on data. This is actually what in praxis the students in the experiment used when asked to correlate with a percentage the two columns in p. 7, the an swers of which filled in the matrix entries for the relation R. This relevance relation (neither reflexive, nor symmetric, nor transitive—the implication is reflexive and transitive but not symmetric) is a slight generalization of the usual equivalence and compatibility relation in fuzzy logic. Also, given the above, one could also define a relevancy measure by: j i j X Yyi xX yY Y X RX Y , where j i is the degree of relevance of yito j, and X, Y are the cardinalities of X and Y. Notice that for the special cases Y = {B} and X = {Phil, Discr}, and Y = {BF} and X = {Phil, Discr}, we have: 0.1 0.55 B RX BF R X, which once again shows why the subjects would conside r BF as more relevant to the description of Linda. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 332
M. ARISTIDOU as she did major in Philosophy (so degree of membership = 1) and she is “deeply” concern on issues of discrimination (hence high degree of relevancy). Therefore, the matrix formula for the conclusion (or “guess”) gives: 00.2 10.9 0.30.8 0.3 0.8 BBF C LoRo i.e. , which says that the subjects ranked BF higher than B, and saw it more possible given the data. 0.3 0.8C What about the probabilities then? Our model does not re quire any. And even though the question posed to the Linda problem contain the term “probability” the subjects do not, and apparently did not, have to interpret it literally. The problem is a real life problem that involves human experiences and knowledge; it is not a problem to be decided by throwing dice. The question posed was not “what is more probable to have in general or theoretically/mathematically speaking”, but “what is more probable Linda is”, given the data. Have the data been taken into consideration? And how were they interpreted, in a Bayesian or a frequentist manner?11 And if they have, and sub jects failed the “test”, why not just simply say they made a mistake, or they are bad in probabilities, just like millions of perfectly rational people are bad in basic mathematics? There is a difference on how we actually reason and how we ought to reason. And the evidence that we somehow ought to reason probabilistically is not quite convincing. Again, the experimenters ignored the degrees of membership of B and BF to L, i.e. to L’s “relevant” properties. Their sub jects though did not consider all properties of L as equivalent, and it seems that they considered certain properties having more relevance and weight to the presented state of affairs that they were asked to make a choice. For example, what if the choices were: 1) Linda is an alien. 2) Linda is an alien and is active in the feminist movement. Most likely, from the description, she is not an alien, and we do not know whether aliens care or not for women’s rights. But, the description does point to some relevancy of Linda to femi nism. So the subjects could have thought that Linda sounds like a feminist, and whether or not she is an alien is secondary. Be cause just being an alien doesn’t necessarily imply that she is a feminist, but being an alien and a feminist certai nly implies that she is a feminist. So, the crucial quality or property of Linda being a feminist was “locked” first, to be consistent or relevant to the description, and the rest of the properties are either ir relevant or are examined second. And, so what if in general there are less aliens feminists than aliens? In this particular case, the particular subject L is more likely to be a feminists whether she is an alien or not, in virtue of her properties/qualities. Some Objections Before I turn into some possible objections, it is important to once again clearly state what are the main points that I am ar guing for. First, I am criticizing the methodology of Tversky and Kahneman, the way they arrive to their conclusions, and what those conclusions entail for human rationality. Obviously, there is a vast literature devoted to this discussion and I could not comment or refer to all of it. It is important to note, how ever, in what my criticism differs from other criticisms of the Linda case. It differs to the point that it indicates a mistake on behalf of the experimenters: The classical probability model used in the Linda problem is not the right model. One has to acknowledge that at first, and then continue with any further discussion. Would a fuzzy probability model render different probability outcomes? No, but that is not my point of concern. My point is not to find an alternative model which will judge the subjects rational. My point is to not to judge them irrational on the basis of models they do not know, and they are not obli gated to know. It is easy for me to give you an algebra problem, of a level you have not cover, and because you failed to solve it to judge you irrational. It is seems unfair. But, this is what the mathematical interpretation of probability in the Linda problem amounts to. Is correct responding to probability questions a prerequisite to rational thinking? This is what the experiment ers seem to assume, but I am not sure yet as to why anyone should accept such a prerequisite. Second, as I stated earlier in this paper, I think a nonclassi cal reasoning model is, perhaps, a more promising model in describing how humans reason. Perhaps … this is the key word here. I do not currently have an alternative model, and I am not aware of anyone who does. The argument behind exploring an alternative nonclassical model is based on the fact that the current one, that is classical probability, failed. People do not use probability calculus to make decisions; most do not even know what that is. Even in matters that involve chance most do not use probability to make decisions. Poker, for example, is a good example. Furthermore, there is a big distinction between chance and imprecision (two different types of uncertainty) and the problem of Linda is not a clear cut chance problem. The argument behind the suggestion for a fuzzy model is simply the nature of the data in the description of Linda. It is only reason able to request that the probability of fuzzy data to be ac counted with the correct model, if one is interested in linking further those results to rationality. Yet, my point still stands. The subjects are not obligated to know probability, classical or fuzzy, to count as rational. Unless, someone (the experimenters in this case) makes an argument on why should it be so. Finally, say that the people went through a quick probability seminar, they were all taught the conjunction rule, and they applied it correctly and responded as they should. Would they all count as rational then? How so? Or would that just simply mean that they know probability, applied it correctly, and solved a math problem successfully? Now, a few comments on some specific objections: 1) I mentioned earlier that humans might seem “irrational” with respect to probabilistic systems of inference, but we have no reason to believe that these are the only systems that can give an account of human reasoning. One perhaps could object as follows: Suppose that we changed the system, and hence make better sense of peoples’ responses. Then, the fact that people contradict basic rules of probability theory does seem problematic to rationality. 11It is well known that in probability the two approaches do not agree. For a discussion on t he different definitions of probability s ee Manktelow (2012:p 25). It is worth noticing that in the same book, that the author in more than one occasion (p. xii, p.247) distinguishes it from binary logic, or calls it nonbinary, but it is not clear to me what he means, as probability is also ased on binary logic. He also never mentions fuzziness or fuzzy probability Fuzzy logic can be distinguished from binary logic, but even that on the level of theorems is base d on binary logic. I disagree. I believe that the last statement begs the question. How exactly does probability relate to rationality? One cannot Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 333
M. ARISTIDOU simply refer to the Linda test. The fact that they failed it does not render them irrational, as the link between probability and rationality has not been established yet. Neither their success to the Linda test would render the subject rational. When Giger enzer et al. claim that “we should not care about being irrational in that sense”, this I interpret I as a quiet admission that prob ability does not have much to tell us about rationality. It is in deed not quite clear how introducing another logic one could shed more light on the Linda problem. But, considering the fact that the logic used is at least controversial, if not the wrong one, then it is only reasonable for one to explore other venues. 2) When I spoke of “alternative systems that could give an account of human reasoning”, one could quickly respond: What does it mean to “give an account of human reasoning”? Would not this simply amount to specify the rules that we follow and the calculus of those rules? If this is so, then such a project would be simply descriptive, and therefore the rationality ques tion would still remain untouched. Regarding the last statement, I believe the same applies for probability theory. The model in the Linda experiment gave at best a descriptive account, but has not been related to the ra tionality question in and of itself. Furthermore, specifying the rules that we follow and the mechanics and unfolding of those rules is one issue, but there are other issues too. For example, those rules have to be empirical too, and have some connection to how humans actually reason. Most humans are not aware of the specified probabilistic rules, their calculus, etc, and they certainly do not follow them even in matters of chance. So, I am not sure how much it can inform us about how humans reason and whether their reasoning is rational. 3) We noted that words like “very” and “deeply” indicate weight, or a degree, that certain information about Linda bear in relation to choices 2) and 5), a fact that probability theory also ignores. Question: How does being “very bright” relate to Linda being a bank teller or a feminist bank teller? This is not to say that feminists are smarter or that if you are smart you must be a feminist. It is more to show that being a feminist adds another dimension to Linda’s qualities. Positive or negative, the point is that she thought about it. To put it bluntly, she is not simply counting money; she is concerned with other issues too, and exposed herself, as she also majored in Philosophy, to more interesting and difficult issues such as human rights, etc. It could be that one is very bright but has no other interests, but here it is clear that the description of Linda points to the fact that she is involved in other topics, and has opinion on matters. Such a person is perhaps more rare to find, but it is not going to be decided by throwing dice. 4) I tried to emphasize and clarify that the reason I suggest another model is not because I want to render people apriori rational or defend their judgment. It is simply because the (classical) probability model that was used here seems to be completely inappropriate for the problem at hand. One then could ask: Inappropriate how and to whom? If people were using the model correctly, then perhaps they would not have failed the test this way. Why is it inappropriate for us to judge them based on that model? Is the model still inappropriate if people had been reminded of the relevant rules of probability theory? It is inappropriate tool to model the experiment. This is sim ply a mistake on behalf of the experimenters, and I am indicat ing it. It might not affect the conclusion of the experiment, but the experimenters have the obligation to apply the right tools. People have no obligations to use, or know, the probability model at all, just because the experimenters included the word “probability” in the question. Certain issues are not settled by throwing dice, and the distinction between randomness and fuzziness (imprecision) needs to be drawn. And probability, even on everyday matters of chance, gives us an idea and a hint, but we certainly do not know or explicitly compute rules of probability in order to make a decision. And, say that the peo ple went through a quick probability seminar, as we mentioned above, and they were all taught the conjunction rule, and they applied it correctly and responded as they should. Would they all count as rational then? Or would it just simply mean that they know probability, applied it correctly, and solved a math problem successfully? 5) I noted that “a good amount of data that refer to Linda are fuzzy data, including the conjunctive statement 5).” One could object: In what sense this data is fuzzy? People are receiving a description that involves no numbers, so how is this “fuzzy data”? For example, Linda being “outspoken”, “very bright”, and “deeply concerned with discrimination and justice issues” these are supposed to be fuzzy data”, but this is not quite clear what this is supposed to mean. These are fuzzy date in the sense that the sets of all “bright” people, or “outspoken” people, are inherently fuzzy. The mem bership or not in that those sets is not a yes or no situation, but there is a degree of membership in those sets for each case we examine, which is determined subjectively. Now, these mem bership degrees in the corresponding fuzzy sets are supposed to be taken into considerations when one consideration when one understands probability in the mathematical sense and does the calculations explicitly. Is this what the expectation of the ex perimenters was? 6) Earlier we mentioned that “based on the relation ‘relevant things go with relevant things’ which seems consistent also with neuroscientific evidence, it is more likely that y2 relates more to L, casually on the basis that usually less Philosophy majors become bank tellers, and usually more people that are ‘deeply’ concerned with issues of discrimination, etc, are active members of feminist movements.” One could say: What neuro scientific evidence have to do with the question at issue? Also, where are the claims about philosophy majors becoming bank tellers or not coming from? I am simply saying that humans tend to classify and group things based on relevancy. For example, if I tell you “ice cream” you could reply back to me some relevant things that your mind related to it by experience. Such as “cone”, “cold”, “cup”, etc. You probably would not replied “calculator” or “fish” to me. And that is what I think happened with the Linda case. The subjects most I think saw more relevancy between “feminism” and “philosophy major” than between “bank teller” and “philosophy major”. If this is backed by experience, which I think it does, then the experimenters should take a gallop and actually count whether bank tellers or feminist bank tellers had philosophy degrees, or took philosophy classes, or have broader, or casual, philosophical concerns in general, etc. 7) Finally, I mentioned that “the question posed was not ‘what is more probable to have in general, but what is more probable Linda is’, given the data.” One could say: Well, this is not the question posed to the subjects after all. Yes, but why was the description given to the subjects then? Was it given to mislead them? Was not given to them so they could weigh, and take into consideration, the information about Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 334
M. ARISTIDOU Linda and compute the probability? Because if not, and the description was irrelevant, then we basically test the subjects on whether they were aware of a certain math rule, namely the conjunction rule, and because of the lack of that knowledge we rendered them irrational. I do not believe that was reasonable, or fair. Concluding Remarks Davidson argues that inference that is frequently irrational is conceptually impossible since inference (a process that gener ates beliefs) must have high levels of rationality and truth. Therefore, humans must be rational. Davidson’s argument is a plausible argument if one relaxes the demands for consistency. That wi ll make it more pragmatic and bring it closer to Stich’s position and experimental results. But then, one needs a new (more general) framework and model to study rationality. Just as Oaksford and Chater have suggested that committing the fallacy in Wason’s Task was, actually, the rational thing to do, other authors (such as Dulany & Hilton, 1991, Slugoski & Wilson, 1998) claim that committing the fallacy in the conjunc tion problem was a rational response. On the other hand, other authors (such as Stanovich & West, 1998, 2000) conducted studies which showed that subjects that committed the conjunc tion fallacy also scored lower (in general) in SAT tests than subjects that did not commit the fallacy. This fact is an impor tant empirical piece of evidence that comes in the discussion, although it is still not clear how it translates in terms of ration ality. Also, it is uncertain what SAT has to do with rationality anyway, considering the extensive criticism12 against it on be ing an unfair, and biased test, and irrelevant to measuring rea soning skills. Perhaps if we tested the subjects in chess playing the ones who committed the conjunction fallacy might have been better chess players than the ones who avoided the fallacy. But that is not the point. Because whatever the test is, it still falls under Goodman’s project to describe a test that tests ra tionality, which in turn falls into Stich’s criticism who says that it is very difficult to establish a relation between rationality and “appropriate” test, since we always assume a priori that the test itself is appropriate. In conclusion, a nonclassical reasoning model is, perhaps, a more promising model in describing how humans reason. It is not the first time that an alternative to probabilistic models has been suggested. Cohen (1979) suggested a Baconian model of judgment as an alternative to Bayesian ones. Perhaps, a fuzzy reasoning model (not necessarily fuzzy probabilistic) could be a better way to model humans’ natural way of communicating and reasoning. As Hilton says: Understanding conversational inference may help clarify the question as to which normative model is appropriate in a given situation (Hilton, 1995: p. 266). Indeed, since an important aspect of the conversational in ferential model is the effect of conventional and conversational implicatures in which fuzzy words such as “intelligent”, “ac tive” and “few” are frequently used (see Hilton, 1995: p. 265), then we need a model that is appropriate to deal with such vague concepts and respects implicatures. Whether there was an error on the part of the subjects (in re sponding the way they did to a probability problem) or an error on the part of the experimenters (in testing subjects on prob abilities to account for rationality), the lesson is that alternative models of reasoning perhaps need to be considered. Models that are not blind to relevance or imprecision. The nature of the testing, perhaps, needs also to be inverted. The objective should not be how well human reasoning approximates a reasoning model, but how well a reasoning model approximates human reasoning. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Andrei Zavaliy for his comments on an earlier draft as well as the anonymous referee for his comments and productive criticism. REFERENCES Buckley, J. J. (2010). Fuzzy probability and statistics (studies in fuzzi ness and soft computing). New York: Springer. Cherniak, C. (1981). Minimal rationality. Mind, XC, 161183. doi:10.1093/mind/XC.358.161 Cohen, L. J. (1979). On the psychology of prediction: Whose is the Fallacy? Cognition, 8, 385407. doi:10.1016/00100277(79)900234 Davidson, D. (1980). Psychology as philosophy. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events. New York: Oxford University Press. Davidson, D. (1982a). Paradoxes of irrationality. In R. Wollheim, & J. Hopkins (Eds.), Philosophical essays on Freud. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511554636.018 Davidson, D. (1982b). Rational animals. Dialectica, 36, 317327. doi:10.1111/j.17468361.1982.tb01546.x Davidson, D. (1984). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Inquiries into truth and interpretation. New York: Oxford Press. Davidson, D. (1984). Radical interpretation. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Inquiries into truth and interpretation. New York: Oxford Press. Dulany, D. E., & Hilton, D. J. (1991). Conversational implicature, con sious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9, 85110. doi:10.1521/soco.1991.9.1.85 Fisk, J. E. (2004). Conjunction fallacy. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook of fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory. Hove: Psychology Press. Gould, S. J. (1992). Bully for brontosaurus: Reflections in natural his tory (p. 469). Ne w Yor k: N orton. Harten, D. S. (2008). How to solve the conjunction fallacy? A discus sion of alternative approaches. Master’s Thesis, Amsterdam: Univer sity of Amsterdam. BarHillel, M., & Nater, E. (1993). How alike is it vs. how likely is it: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Journal of Perosnal ity and Social Psychology, 65, 11191131. doi:10.1037/00223514.65.6.1119 Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The “conjunction fallacy” revis ited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 275305. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10990771(199912)12:4<275::AIDBDM323>3.0 .CO;2M 12J. Katzman (founder of The Princeton Revi ew) in an interview in Frontline (PBS, 1999) he says regarding SAT: “The SAT is said to predict freshman year grades in college, a little. And it does. It measures it a little. But the point is that it doesn’t measure intelligence.” In the same lines, from Ten yths About The SAT (The National Center for Fair & Open Testing), we have: “The SAT_cannot measure are writing ability, strategic reasoning, higher order thinking skills, experience, persistence and creativity. See also: chievement Versus Aptitude Tests in College Admissions, by R. C. Atkin son, 2001. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational in ference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248271. doi:10.1037/00332909.118.2.248 JohnsonLaird, P., & Wason, P. C. (1972). Psychology of reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Klir, G., St. Clair, U., & Yuan, B. (1997). Fuzzy set theory: Founda tions and applications . New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kosko, B. (1990). Fuzziness vs. probability. International Journal of Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 335
M. ARISTIDOU Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 336 General Systems, 17, 211240. doi:10.1080/03081079008935108 Manktelow, K. (2012). Thinking and reasoning: An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment, and decision making. New York: Psychology Press. Morier, D. M., & Borgida, E. (1984). The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 243252. doi:10.1177/0146167284102010 Nielsen, R. H., & McKenna, T. (2003). A theory of thalamocortex. In R. H. Nielsen, & T. McKenna (Eds.), Computational models for neoro science. London: Springer. doi:10.1007/9781447100850_4 Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world. East Sussex: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203345955 Robertson, S. I. (1999). Types of thinking. London: Routle dg e. Shier, D. (2000). Can human rationality be defended a priori? Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 67 81. Siler, W., & Buckley, J. J. (2004). Fuzzy expert systems and fuzzy rea soning. New Jersey: WileyInterscience. doi:10.1002/0471698504 Slugoski, B. R., & Wilson, A. E. (1998). Contribution of conversation skills to the production of judgmental errors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 575601. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10990992(199807/08)28:4<575::AIDEJSP882> 3.0.CO;29 Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in fram ing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289317. doi:10.1080/135467898394094 Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in rea soning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 645665. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00003435 Stich, S. (1985). Could a man be an irrational animal? Synthese, 64, 115135. doi:10.1007/BF00485714 Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason: Preface to a pragmatic theory of cognitive evaluation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tanaka, K. (1996). An introduction to fuzzy logic for practical applica tions. New York: Springer. Tentori, K., Bonini, N., & Osherson, D. (2004). The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjuction. Cognitive Science, 28, 467 477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2803_8 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge Un ive rsity Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive rea soning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psycho logical Review, 90, 293315. doi:10.1037/0033295X.90.4.293 Zadeh, L. (1968). Probability measures of fuzzy events. Journal of Ma Thematical Analysis and Applications, 23, 421427. doi:10.1016/0022247X(68)900784 Zadeh, L. (1984). Fuzzy probabilities. Information Processing & Man agement, 20, 363372. doi:10.1016/03064573(84)900670
