In a message dated 2/26/2016 5:57:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
if you read Pinker you will see enough Wason Tests have been done to
pretty much discount any idea that it is some subtle grammatical shift of
interpretation that explains the divergence.
Perhaps we should revise Pinker, then. I think he has a dual interest in
mind (or philosophical psychology, say) and lingo (or Grice, say) so that
should be interesting.
In a previous post, however, McEvoy had written:
"My quoted points are directed against an account like Steven Pinker's in
"How the Mind Works". His few pages [two? -- Speranza] on Wason are in many
ways excellent but they address Wason Tests as if these show that
sometimes "we"/most of us think logically and sometimes not - as if we have a
sometimes 'logical psychology' and sometimes an 'illogical psychology'. That
is a questionable
assumption..."
So I like this. It's like a Wason test, only different.
i. Pinker is good.
ii. Pinker is bad.
i.e. Pinker is good because reading him [i.e. his book, "How the mind
works"] one sees enough Wason testes to disproof Grice, say. But Pinker is bad
because his assumption is questionable.
And then there's Pears, Motivated irrationality -- I like to keep my
headers relevant. :)
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html