HPSLEC62010 - Lecture #6 Inductive Reasoning AGENDA I....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lecture #6 Inductive Reasoning AGENDA I. Inductive Reasoning Vs Deductive Reasoning II. Pure Induction III. Theories of Concept Learning A. The Continuity Theory of Concept Learning B. The Non-continuity Theory of Concept Learning C. Comparison of the Two Theories D. More on Rule-Based Induction IV. The Confirmation Bias
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
I. Inductive Reasoning Vs Deductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning is to seek a rule or concept From evidence (experience), e.g. every time I see a ruby it has been red. Therefore I come to believe inductively the rule ‘all rubies are red’. Deductive reasoning involves discovering the consequences of assumptions, e.g. I have the rule ‘all rubies are red’, I have a ruby, therefore I deduce that ruby must be red. Example uses ‘Modus Ponens’ A implies B A Therefore B
Background image of page 2
What About Rules ? Conceptual Natural Tight c 2 =a 2 +b 2 Product odd numbers is even Opposite charges Attract E=MC 2 Loose Castle early in chess Gaps between prime Numbers increase Tall parents tall kids a c b Exercise promotes health
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Rules (Continued) Rules are supposed to capture regularities: Temporal regularities- future= f(past), weather pattern prediction, stock market projections Spatial regularities- sample food in area, if OK then go back and eat there again. Procedural regularities- Rules of a game, rules of conversation. Attribution regularities- Rubies are red, birds have feathers.
Background image of page 4
II. Pure Induction The goal is to keep a ‘completely open mind’ and let the regularities in nature lead to a rule. The alternative is ‘rule based induction.’ One has a tentative rule. Seeks evidence by trying the rule. If it works increase belief in it, if it fails reject it and try another rule. Pure induction is certainly a noble goal, but there are problems with this idea. For one, there are just too many possibilities for an open, unbiased mind to zero in on. One good example of the limitations of pure induction is language learning.
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Discovery A. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904- 1990). Probably the most anti-theoretical of the behaviorists. Skinner debated Chomsky on language, debated theologians on religion, wrote utopian novels. His main apparatus was the a ‘Skinner box.’
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/05/2010 for the course PSYCH Psy Beh F2 taught by Professor Williamh.batchelder during the Fall '10 term at UC Irvine.

Page1 / 24

HPSLEC62010 - Lecture #6 Inductive Reasoning AGENDA I....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online