On 13, Mar 2013 | In | By Sunny
Reasoning about inconsistency
To detect an inconsistency, people search for a possibility represented in a mental model, in which each proposition in a description is true. If they find such a possibility, the description is consistent; otherwise, it is inconsistent.
When an inconsistency arises from an incontrovertible fact, they retract any singularly dubious proposition or any proposition that is inconsistent with the fact; otherwise, they retract whichever proposition mismatches the fact. A mismatch can arise from a proposition that has only mental models that conflict with the fact or fail to represent it. Finally, individuals use their causal knowledge — in the form of models of possibilities — to create explanations of what led to the inconsistency.
- Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2012). Mental models and consistency.
- Walsh, C., Johnson-Laird, P.N., (2009). Changing your mind.
- Frosch, C.A., Johnson-Laird, P.N., (2006). The revision of beliefs about causes and enabling conditions.
- Jahn, G., Johnson-Laird, P.N., Knauff, M., (2005). Reasoning about consistency with spatial mental models.
- Legrenzi, P., Johnson-Laird, P.N., (2005). The evaluation of diagnostic explanations for inconsistencies.
- Johnson-Laird, P.N., Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., (2004). How we detect logical inconsistencies.
- Johnson-Laird, P.N., Girotto, V., Legrenzi, P., (2004). Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency.
- Hasson, U., and Johnson-Laird, P.N., (2003). Why believability cannot explain belief revision.
- Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., Johnson-Laird, P.N., (2003). Models of consistency.
- Jonson-Laird, P.N., Legrenzi, P., Legrenzi, M., (2000). Illusions in reasoning about consistency.