Publikation:

Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”

Vorschaubild

Dateien

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

Datum

2017

Autor:innen

Kellen, David
Krahl, Hannes
Klauer, Karl Christoph

Herausgeber:innen

Kontakt

ISSN der Zeitschrift

Electronic ISSN

ISBN

Bibliografische Daten

Verlag

Schriftenreihe

Auflagebezeichnung

URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1374306
ArXiv-ID

Internationale Patentnummer

Angaben zur Forschungsförderung

Projekt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Sammlungen

Philosophie: Publikationen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz

Gesperrt bis

Titel in einer weiteren Sprache

Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published

Erschienen in

Thinking & Reasoning. 2017, 23(4), pp. 449-482. ISSN 1354-6783. eISSN 1464-0708. Available under: doi: 10.1080/13546783.2017.1374306

Zusammenfassung

In this study, we investigate the influence of reason-relation readings of indicative conditionals and “and”/“but”/“therefore” sentences on various cognitive assessments. According to the Frege–Grice tradition, a dissociation is expected. Specifically, differences in the reason-relation reading of these sentences should affect participants’ evaluations of their acceptability but not of their truth value. In two experiments we tested this assumption by introducing a relevance manipulation into the truth-table task as well as in other tasks assessing the participants’ acceptability and probability evaluations. Across the two experiments, a strong dissociation was found. The reason-relation reading of all four sentences strongly affected their probability and acceptability evaluations, but hardly affected their respective truth evaluations. Implications of this result for recent work on indicative conditionals are discussed.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache

Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie

Schlagwörter

Konferenz

Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined

Forschungsvorhaben

Organisationseinheiten

Zeitschriftenheft

Zugehörige Datensätze in KOPS

Zitieren

ISO 690SKOVGAARD-OLSEN, Niels, David KELLEN, Hannes KRAHL, Karl Christoph KLAUER, 2017. Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”. In: Thinking & Reasoning. 2017, 23(4), pp. 449-482. ISSN 1354-6783. eISSN 1464-0708. Available under: doi: 10.1080/13546783.2017.1374306
BibTex
@article{SkovgaardOlsen2017Relev-40920,
  year={2017},
  doi={10.1080/13546783.2017.1374306},
  title={Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”},
  number={4},
  volume={23},
  issn={1354-6783},
  journal={Thinking & Reasoning},
  pages={449--482},
  author={Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels and Kellen, David and Krahl, Hannes and Klauer, Karl Christoph}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40920">
    <dc:creator>Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:issued>2017</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:contributor>Klauer, Karl Christoph</dc:contributor>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-12-13T11:14:40Z</dc:date>
    <dc:contributor>Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels</dc:contributor>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:creator>Klauer, Karl Christoph</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Krahl, Hannes</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-12-13T11:14:40Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:contributor>Kellen, David</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Kellen, David</dc:creator>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/40920"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>Krahl, Hannes</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">In this study, we investigate the influence of reason-relation readings of indicative conditionals and “and”/“but”/“therefore” sentences on various cognitive assessments. According to the Frege–Grice tradition, a dissociation is expected. Specifically, differences in the reason-relation reading of these sentences should affect participants’ evaluations of their acceptability but not of their truth value. In two experiments we tested this assumption by introducing a relevance manipulation into the truth-table task as well as in other tasks assessing the participants’ acceptability and probability evaluations. Across the two experiments, a strong dissociation was found. The reason-relation reading of all four sentences strongly affected their probability and acceptability evaluations, but hardly affected their respective truth evaluations. Implications of this result for recent work on indicative conditionals are discussed.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:title>Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”</dcterms:title>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Interner Vermerk

xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter

Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.

Prüfdatum der URL

Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation

Finanzierungsart

Kommentar zur Publikation

Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen