New Cog Sci Journal Useful for Designers
Wiley InterScience just announced a new journal, WIREs Cognitive Science, that should be very useful for designers. Full access to content is free (for a limited time) and part of the purpose of the journal is to be:
“An authoritative, encyclopedic resource addressing key topics from diverse research perspectives”
This should make it a goldmine for the cognitive designer interested in taking a evidence-based approach. For example, in the very first issue, an article on Deductive Reasoning, looks at the role of deductive reasoning from the point of view of logic, psychology and artificial intelligence. It provides a precise review of logical inference, probabilistic models, mental models and conditional reasoning.
To quote:
“Deductive reasoning is critical to many human activities. This paper, for example, has relied on at least one valid inference of the form:
 |
If theory X is correct then phenomenon Y should not occur. |
|
But, phenomenon Y does occur. |
|
Therefore, theory X is not correct |
Despite the ubiquity of such inferences, some psychologists have argued that logical validity is the wrong criterion for human reasoning, and that it should be replaced by probability.[43] The probabilistic approach yields excellent accounts of some experiments - though not those summarized in the previous section. And, contrary to its claims, individuals are sensitive to the difference between valid deductions and probabilistic conclusions.[44] Other current theories of reasoning postulate, as we saw earlier, that it relies on content-specific rules, or even innate mental modules for specific topics, such as checking whether someone is cheating you[13]. The difficulty in assessing these accounts is that theorists have yet to specify the complete set of modules, their detailed workings, or the principles by which problems trigger a particular module. What remains highly controversial are the meaning and mental representation of if-then assertions in daily life,[3][45-47] estimates of their probability,[48-50] and deductive reasoning from them.[51-54] Theoretical generality and the evidence lean toward the model theory.[55-57] But, of course, a new theory could lead to the discovery of robust phenomena contrary to the model theory. The theory postulates that counterexamples can overturn theories, and so it will at least account for its own demise.”
Excellent framing for any cognitive designer facing the challenge of supporting or accelerating deductive reasoning.
