Núm. 68 (2024): Enero - abril
Artículos

Normatividad y pluralismo en los estudios sobre el razonamiento humano

XML PDF
  • Alba Massolo
Alba Massolo
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v680.2438

Publicado 2023-12-07

Palabras clave

Cómo citar

Massolo, A. (2023). Normatividad y pluralismo en los estudios sobre el razonamiento humano. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, (68), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v680.2438

Derechos de autor 2023 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Altmetrics

Citas

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Resumen

En este artículo, abordo la disputa entre normativismo y descriptivismo centrándome en el problema del arbitraje. Para esto, propongo acercar a esta disputa la discusión sobre el problema del colapso que se ha dado recientemente en el marco de la filosofía de la lógica. Mi propuesta sostiene, por un lado, que el razonamiento humano, en cuanto práctica social, es una actividad esencialmente normada y, por otro lado, que los sistemas formales que se toman de referencia en la psicología del razonamiento son el resultado de diversos procesos de equilibrio reflexivo. Esto permite defender el rol normativo de los sistemas formales como estándar para el razonamiento humano. Además, sostengo que la adecuación de un sistema formal está signada por los contextos específicos de razonamiento. Así, defiendo un pluralismo normativo respecto de los sistemas formales de inferencia en el marco de los estudios empíricos sobre el razonamiento humano.

XML PDF

Citas

  1. Achourioti, T., Fugard, A. J. B. y Stenning, K. (2014). The Empirical Study of Norms Is Just What We Are Missing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1159), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01159.
  2. Barrio, E. A., Pailos, F. y Szmuc, D. (2018). Substructural Logics, Pluralism and Collapse. Synthese, 198, 4991–5007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01963-3.
  3. Barrio, E. A., Pailos, F. y Toranzo, J. (2021). Anti-exceptionalism, Truth and the BA-Plan. Synthese, 199, 12561–12586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03343-w.
  4. Beall, J. C. y Restall, G. (2006). Logical Pluralism. Oxford University Press.
  5. Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit. Harvard University Press.
  6. Caret, C. (2017). The Collapse of Logical Pluralism Has Been Greatly Exaggerated. Erkenntnis, 82, 739-760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9841-7.
  7. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.
  8. Cohen, J. (1981). Can Human Irrationality Be Experimentally Demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(3), 317-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00009092.
  9. Colyvan, M. (2013) Idealisations in Normative Models. Synthese, 190, 1337-1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0166-z.
  10. Corner, A. y Hahn, U. (2013). Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others? Synthese, 190(16), 3579-3510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0211-y.
  11. Crespo, I. y Massolo, A. (2022). Arguments against a Bayesian Approach to the Normativity of Argumentation. [Abstract de presentación]. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 28(2), 294-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bsl.2022.17.
  12. Dutilh-Novaes, C. (2015). A Dialogical, Multi-Agent Account of the Normativity of Logic. Dialectica, 69, 587-609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12118.
  13. Dutilh-Novaes, C. (2021). The Dialogical Roots of Deduction. Cambridge University Press.
  14. Goodman, N. ([1954] 1983). Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
  15. Harman, G. (1986). Change in View. The MIT Press.
  16. Elqayam, S. (2018). The new paradigm in psychology of reasoning. En L. Ball y V. Thompson (eds). The Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp.130-150). Routledge.
  17. Elqayam, S. y Evans, J. (2011). Subtracting “Ought” From “Is”: Descriptivism Versus Normativism in the Study of Human Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(5), 233–290. DOI: ​​ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1100001X.
  18. Evans, J. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 978-996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.978
  19. Evans, J. (2012). Questions and Challenges for the New Psychology of Reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(1), 5-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2011.637674.
  20. Evans, J. (2014). Rationality and the Illusion of Choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(104), 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00104
  21. Hansson, S. O. (2000). Formalization in Philosophy. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6 2), 162-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/421204.
  22. Johnson-Laird, P. (2006). How We Reason. Oxford University Press.
  23. Kahneman, D. (2011). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. J. Chamorro Mielke (trad.). Editorial Debate.
  24. Kellen, N. (2020). The Normative Problem for Logical Pluralism. Inquiry, 63(3-4), 258-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2018.1548375.
  25. Kouri Kissel, T. y Shapiro, S. (2020). Logical Pluralism and Normativity. Inquiry, 63(3-4), 389-410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2017.1357495.
  26. Macfarlane, J. (2004). In What Sense (If Any) Is Logic Normative for Thought? [Manuscrito sin publicar]. URL: https://johnmacfarlane.net/normativity_of_logic.pdf.
  27. Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. The MIT Press.
  28. Massolo, A. (2021). Pluralismo lógico, normatividad y equilibrio reflexivo. Teorema, 40(3), 29-48.
  29. Mercier, H. y Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.
  30. Norman, A. (2016). Why We Reason: Intention-Alignment and the Genesis of Human Rationality. Biology & Philosophy, 31, 685-704. DOI: ​​https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9532-4.
  31. Oaksford, M. y Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian Rationality. Oxford University Press.
  32. Oaksford, M. y Chater, N. (2010). Cognition and Conditionals: Probability and Logic in Human Thinking. Oxford University Press.
  33. O’Madagain, C. (2019). Is reasoning culturally transmitted? Teorema, 38(1), 107-120. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26746237
  34. Peregrin, J. y Svaboda, V. (2017). Reflective Equilibrium and the Principles of Logical Analysis. Routledge.
  35. Priest, G. (2006). Doubt Truth to Be a Liar. Oxford University Press.
  36. Read, S. (2006). Monism: The One True Logic. En D. Devidi y T. Kenyon (eds.), A Logical Approach to Philosophy. (pp. 193-209). Springer.
  37. Skelac, I. (2017). What We Talk About When We Talk About Logic as Normative for Reasoning. Philosophies, 2, 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2020008.
  38. Stanovich, K., West, R. y Toplak, M. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Towards a Test of Rational Thinking. The MIT Press.
  39. Stei, E. (2020). Rivalry, Normativity and the Collapse of Logical Pluralism. Inquiry, 63(3-4), 411-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2017.1327370.
  40. Steinberger, F. (2019). Consequence and Normative Guidance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 98, 306-328. DOI: http://dx.dogi.org/10.1111/phpr.12434.
  41. Stenning, K. y Van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. The MIT Press.
  42. Stich, S. (1990). The Fragmentation of Reason: Preface to a Pragmatic Theory of Cognitive Evaluation. The MIT Press.
  43. Stupple, E. y Ball, L. (2014). The Intersection Between Descriptivism and Meliorism in Reasoning Research: Further Proposals in Support of ‘Soft Normativism’. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1269), 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01269.
  44. Tajer, D. (2020). The Normative Autonomy of Logic. Erkenntnis, 87, 2661–2684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00321-5.
  45. Tomasello, M. (2014) A Natural History of Human Reasoning. Harvard University Press.
  46. Van Lambalgen, M. y Counihan, M. (2008). Formal Models for Real People. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 17(4), 385-389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-008-9068-3.
  47. Weinberg, J. (2011). What Is Evaluative Normativity, That We (Maybe) Should Avoid It? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(5), 274-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11000604.