"The Koslowski book will become a classic on scientific reasoning,
problmem solving, and causal understanding. It challenges the model
that dominates psychological work on these topics, the human analysis
of the psychology of causal thinking. It weaves a beautifully clear
treatment of alternative relevant modern philosphical considerations
about causal thinking into the presentation of a clever set of
experiments. The case is convincing: children and adults do reason in
sensible scientific ways in their use of evidence and search for
causes. A must for experts in cognitive science, congnitive
development, conceptual change and science education."
-- Rochel Gelman, Professor of Psychology, UCLA
In Theory and Evidence Barbara Koslowski brings into
sharp focus the ways in which the standard literature both distorts
and underestimates the reasoning abilities of ordinary people. She
provides the basis for a new research program on a more complete
characterization of scientific reasoning, problem solving, and
causality. Long acknowledged for her empirical work in the field of
cognitive development, Koslowski boldy criticizes many of the
currently classic studies and musters a compelling set of arguments,
backed by an exhaustive set of experiments carried out during the last
decade.
Theory and Evidence describes research that looks at the
beliefs that people hold about the type of evidence that counts in
scientific reasoning and also examines how those beliefs change with
age. The primary focus is on the strategies that underlie actual
scientific practice: two general sorts of research are reported, one
on hypothesis testing and the other on how people deal with evidence
that disconfirms a given explanation -- the process of hypothesis
revision.
Koslowski argues that when scientific reasoning is operationally
defined so that correct performance consists of focusing on
covariation and ignoring considerations of theory or mechanisms, then
subjects are often treated as engaging in flawed reasoning when in
fact their reasoning is scientifically legitimate. Neither relying on
covariation alone nor relying on theory alone constitutes a formula
for success.
Learning, Development, and Conceptual Change series
|
