I appreciate this article for introducing research I was not previously aware of.
However, as other commenters did, I find myself bothered by the way the examples assume one uses exactly one particular approach to thinking — but in a different aspect. Specifically, I made the effort to work through the example problems myself, and
To solve this second problem you need to use multiple models.
is false. I only need one model, which leaves some facts unspecified. I reasoned as follows:
What I need to know is the relation between “police” and “reporter”.
Everything we know about “police” is that it is simultaneous with “alarm”.
Everything we know about “reporter” is that it is simultaneous with “stabbed”.
What do we know about the two newly mentioned events? That “alarm” is before “stabbed”.
Therefore “police” is before “reporter” (or, if we do not check further, the premises could be inconsistent).
This is building up exactly as much model as we need to reach the conclusion.
I will claim that this is a more realistic mode of reasoning — that is, more applicable to real-world problems — than the one you assume, because it does not assume that all of the information available is relevant, or that there even is a well-defined boundary of “all of the information”.
I find myself bothered by the way the examples assume one uses exactly one particular approach to thinking — but in a different aspect.
I am not sure how to fix this. Plus, the examples (except the first) are all from the literature on mental models.
To solve this second problem you need to use multiple models.
is false. I only need one model, which leaves some facts unspecified.
I changed the post. I shouldn’t have used the word solved. I meant that you need to generate all of the models if you are going to ensure that the model with the conclusion is valid or as you say not ‘inconsistent’. So, you not only have the reach the conclusion. You need to also check if it’s valid. That’s why you go through all three models. In the last example the police arrived before the reporter in one model and the reporter arrived after the police in another of the models. Therefore, the example is invalid.
Plus, the examples (except the first) are all from the literature on mental models.
Then my criticism is of the literature, not your post.
I meant that you need to generate all of the models if you are going to ensure that the model with the conclusion is valid or as you say not ‘inconsistent’. So, you not only have [to] reach the conclusion. You need to also check if it’s valid.
Reality is never inconsistent (in that sense). Therefore, I only need to check to guard against errors in my reasoning or in the information I have given; neither of these is necessary.
That’s why you go through all three models. In the last example the police arrived before the reporter in one model and the reporter arrived after the police in another of the models. Therefore, the example is invalid.
In the last example, the type of reasoning I described above would find no answer, not multiple ones.
(And, to clarify my terminology, the last example is not an instance of “the premises are inconsistent”; rather, there is insufficient information.)
I appreciate this article for introducing research I was not previously aware of.
However, as other commenters did, I find myself bothered by the way the examples assume one uses exactly one particular approach to thinking — but in a different aspect. Specifically, I made the effort to work through the example problems myself, and
is false. I only need one model, which leaves some facts unspecified. I reasoned as follows:
What I need to know is the relation between “police” and “reporter”.
Everything we know about “police” is that it is simultaneous with “alarm”.
Everything we know about “reporter” is that it is simultaneous with “stabbed”.
What do we know about the two newly mentioned events? That “alarm” is before “stabbed”.
Therefore “police” is before “reporter” (or, if we do not check further, the premises could be inconsistent).
This is building up exactly as much model as we need to reach the conclusion.
I will claim that this is a more realistic mode of reasoning — that is, more applicable to real-world problems — than the one you assume, because it does not assume that all of the information available is relevant, or that there even is a well-defined boundary of “all of the information”.
I am not sure how to fix this. Plus, the examples (except the first) are all from the literature on mental models.
I changed the post. I shouldn’t have used the word solved. I meant that you need to generate all of the models if you are going to ensure that the model with the conclusion is valid or as you say not ‘inconsistent’. So, you not only have the reach the conclusion. You need to also check if it’s valid. That’s why you go through all three models. In the last example the police arrived before the reporter in one model and the reporter arrived after the police in another of the models. Therefore, the example is invalid.
Then my criticism is of the literature, not your post.
Reality is never inconsistent (in that sense). Therefore, I only need to check to guard against errors in my reasoning or in the information I have given; neither of these is necessary.
In the last example, the type of reasoning I described above would find no answer, not multiple ones.
(And, to clarify my terminology, the last example is not an instance of “the premises are inconsistent”; rather, there is insufficient information.)