Investigating single-process and dual-process theories of transitive reasoning: Applying Signal Detection Theory and Signed Difference Analysis.

This item is only available electronically.According to influential dual-process theories, reasoning is driven by distinct Type 1 and 2 processing. Type 1 processing is characterised as fast, intuitive and heuristics based, while Type 2 processing is thought to be more effortful, deliberate and requires working memory. However, the dual-process view has faced an increasing amount of criticism over recent years. Single-process theories offer an alternative account, suggesting that reasoning across a range of contexts is reliant on a common assessment of inference strength. The current experiment tested the competing theories using a transitive reasoning task. Key factors relevant to dual-process accounts were manipulated, including premise integration time and working memory demands via premise ordering. Results showed that validity ratings were higher for valid than for invalid arguments, and for believable than for unbelievable conclusions. An interaction between premise ordering (unscrambled vs. scrambled premises) and validity was also observed. These results were consistent with dual-process theories, however, quantitative models were then compared to investigate whether the results were inconsistent with single-process theories. Signal detection theory was applied and dual- and single-process accounts were instantiated as two-dimensional and one-dimensional models, respectively. Model testing via signed difference analysis showed that the observed data do not rule out the simpler single-process, one-dimensional model. This suggests that such single-process models offer a viable account in explaining the underlying cognitive processing intransitive reasoning.Thesis (B.PsychSc(Hons)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 202

EXPLAINING LATERALITY

Working with multi-species allometric relations and drawing on mammalian theorist Denenberg’s works, I provide an explanatory theory of the mammalian dual-brain as no prior account has

Development of the Concept of Inferential Validity

An argument is valid if its conclusion necessarily follows from its premises, regardless of whether the premises and conclusion are empirically true or false. This research tested the hypothesis that understanding validity of inference (including its differentiation from empirical truth) is a relatively late development. Students in Experiment 1 were asked to sort sets of deductive arguments. None of the fourth graders used validity as a basis for distinguishing arguments, while 45% of the seventh graders and 85% of the college students did so. Experiments 2 and 3 explored whether the dramatic age difference could be narrowed by (a) varying the types of arguments used, (b) explaining the concept of validity and instructing students to use it, and/or (c) providing feedback after each trial. Fourth-grade performance remained poor, while seventh-grade performance increased to nearly the level of the college students. It was concluded that the concept of validity typically develops between ages 10 and 12 but that application of that competence continues to increase over a much longer age span. Students not understanding validity commonly evaluated arguments on the basis of empirical truth of component propositions, though even fourth graders revealed an implicit awareness of logical form

Peto’s Paradox: how has evolution solved the problem of cancer prevention?

abstract: The risk of developing cancer should theoretically increase with both the number of cells and the lifespan of an organism. However, gigantic animals do not get more cancer than humans, suggesting that super-human cancer suppression has evolved numerous times across the tree of life. This is the essence and promise of Peto’s Paradox. We discuss what is known about Peto’s Paradox and provide hints of what is yet to be discovered.The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0401-

What Would Animals Say If We Asked the Right Questions? by Vinciane Despret

Review of Vinciane Despret\u27s What Would Animals Say If We Asked the Right Questions

Alien life matters: reflections on cosmopolitanism, otherness, and astrobiology

This is a synaptic paper that invites the reader to take a stroll on the edges of cross-disciplinary knowledge. We will walk the roads of anthropology, history, philosophy, astronomy and biology. It is mainly a theoretical article, where I attempt to provide links between authors and theories that were, at first sight, unrelated. In doing so, this paper is aimed at making one controversial claim: ideologically and politically speaking, cosmopolitanism may never fully transcend itself beyond a debate until and unless humankind encounters alien life forms. The argument is based on a simple equation. Despite all the quarrels and debates around the concept, it seems innocuous to assume that cosmopolitanism is the search for a certain universal identity or, at least, a search for a common culturalia, i.e. the cultural grounds wherein local and global senses of universalism come into being (section 2). In spite of the fact that identities are built in opposition and supported by difference (section 3), cosmopolitanism might only be possible as a political project (cosmopolitics) when humankind is faced with life forms that are capable of providing true Otherness. I believe that this may explain why we have been fascinated by the utopias of extra-terrestrials for many centuries now (section 4). These utopias are present in a diverse array of knowledges, ranging from science to art, literature or even religion. They have been around for at least 500 years. Until now, all of them have been trapped in the realm of imagination, but there is one concrete cluster of knowledge that has attempted to transpose these imaginings into reality: the promising discipline of astrobiology. Astrobiology is mainly troubled by the de-naturalisation of Earth in order to create analogues for the study of life elsewhere in the cosmos. Provocatively, I end up this paper stating that this may well be the most cosmopolitical practice available to us (section 5)