Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-6jfzc Total loading time: 0.414 Render date: 2022-10-06T07:51:38.637Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The “is-ought fallacy” fallacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Mike Oaksford
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom. mike.oaksford@bbk.ac.ukhttp://www.bbk.ac.uk/psyc/staff/academic/moaksford
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Behavioural Sciences Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom. nick.chater@wbs.ac.ukhttp://www.wbs.ac.uk/faculty/members/Nick/Chater-

Abstract

Mere facts about how the world is cannot determine how we ought to think or behave. Elqayam & Evans (E&E) argue that this “is-ought fallacy” undercuts the use of rational analysis in explaining how people reason, by ourselves and with others. But this presumed application of the “is-ought” fallacy is itself fallacious. Rational analysis seeks to explain how people do reason, for example in laboratory experiments, not how they ought to reason. Thus, no ought is derived from an is; and rational analysis is unchallenged by E&E's arguments.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1991) Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:471517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, A., Bulthoff, H. H. & Sheinberg, D. (1996) Shape from texture: Ideal observers and human psychophysics. In: Perception as Bayesian inference, ed. Knill, D. & Richards, W., pp. 287321. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (1999) The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology 38:191258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (in press) Normative systems: Logic, probability, and rational choice. In: The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. & Yuille, A., eds. (2006) Probabilistic models of cognition. Special Issue: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.Google ScholarPubMed
Edgington, D. (1995) On conditionals. Mind 104:235329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2007) The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114:704–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klauer, K. C. (1999) On the normative justification for information gain in Wason's selection task. Psychological Review 106:215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N., eds. (1996) Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, 4th edition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. M. (1992) A course in microeconomic theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. (2005) Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnosticity, probability, impact, and information gain. Psychological Review 112:979–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1994) A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review 101:608–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1998a) Rationality in an uncertain world. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., eds. (1998b) Rational models of cognition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2003) Optimal data selection: Revision, review and re-evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10:289318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., Chater, N. & Larkin, J. (2000) Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26:883–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Pirolli, P. (2007) Information foraging: A theory of adaptive interaction with information. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1931) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1993) Philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1968) Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20:273–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2
Cited by

Linked content

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The “is-ought fallacy” fallacy
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The “is-ought fallacy” fallacy
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The “is-ought fallacy” fallacy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *