3 ms·
At this point we seem to be reasoning by analogy. We'd do better to just study the fact of the matter. Psychologists do not tend to discuss this topic in terms
by MaxBarraclough 7y ago
At this point we seem to be reasoning by analogy. We'd do better to just study the fact of the matter. Psychologists do not tend to discuss this topic in terms of weightings.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-rationalisation-reasoning-our-intuition-and-changing-our-minds/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-r...
http://www.theunconsciousconsumer.com/consumer-psychology/2015/9/8/rationalizing-post-hoc-rationalization http://www.theunconsciousconsumer.com/consumer-psychology/20... (regrettably thin on citations)
https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/6/4/460/1648209 https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/6/4/460/1648209
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
- perl4ever 7y agoI'm not reasoning by analogy; I'm disputing that it's useful. If you look at the physical world with objects that have relationships and characteristics, and describe a mental world that also has discrete entities that interact in designated ways, then I think you are reasoning by (unfounded) analogy.