Consistency and inconsistency between instance and category modal inferences from conditionals

For the modal meanings of conditionals with the form if p then q, there are three existing psychological accounts: the original suppositional theory, the original and revised mental models theory. They imply different modal meanings of if p then q. Alternatively, we propose a revised suppositional theory with the unique prediction that the set from which the instance referred to by a true conditional was randomly drawn, necessarily includes pq cases, and possibly includes ¬pq / ¬p¬q cases, but impossibly includes p¬q cases. One experiment investigated whether category modal inferences from a conditional would be consistent with preceding instance modal inferences from it. The results revealed that (1) previous instance inferences did not affect subsequent category inferences; (2) relevant cases pq and p¬q tended to elicit consistent response patterns, but irrelevant cases ¬pq and ¬p¬q tended to elicit inconsistent response patterns; (3) the overall response pattern of category inferences is consistent with only the prediction of the revised suppositional theory. The latter implies that only the pq possibility is required by a true conditional, but the ¬pq / ¬p¬q possibility is unrequired. On the whole, these findings favor the revised suppositional theory over the other accounts.

The Modal Square of Opposition and the Mental Models Theory

The mental models theory is a current approach trying to account for human thought and hence communication by highlighting the action of semantics and ignoring, to a large extent, syntax. However, it has been argued that the theory actually contains an underlying syntax related to any kind of modal logic. This paper delves into this last idea and is intended to show that the concepts of possibility and necessity as understood in it fulfill the basic requirement that, according to Fitting and Mendelsohn, every modal logic has to meet: to satisfy the relationships provided by the Aristotelian modal square of opposition.

‘But’ and its role in the building of mental representations

The mental models theory rejects that sentences are linked to logical forms. From its perspective, their most relevant aspect refers to the semantic possibilities that correspond to them. In this way, the theory has analyzed in detail the real semantic role that the traditional connectives in logic can play in reasoning. However, given that logical forms are not important in its framework, in this paper, it is argued that those connectives are not the only operators that the mental models theory should review, and that there are other connectives present in most of the languages in general that can be interesting for it as well. That is the case of ‘but’ in English, which is addressed from the approach of the aforementioned theory here.

Analytic Sentences, Cognition, and Language: Some Links between Current Theories

This paper tries to explore possible relations and differences between three kinds of contemporary theories about cognition and language: the approaches supporting the idea that there is a mental logic, the mental models theory, and the frameworks based upon probability logic. That exploration is made here by means of the analytic sentences and the revision of the way each of those types of theories can deal with them. The conclusions seem to show that the three kinds of theories address such sentences in a similar manner, which can mean that there can be more links between them than thought.

‘And’ is not always a logical conjunction

The mental models theory has shown that the logical connectives do not always refer to the interpretation assigned to them by standard logic. Several papers authored by its proponents clearly reveal that in the cases of the conditional and disjunction. In this paper, following a methodology of analysis akin to that of the mental models theory, I try to check whether or not the same applies to conjunction, and my conclusion is that, indeed, this last connective can be linked to any of the sixteen possible interpretations that a logical operator relating two clauses can have.

Gorgias’ Argument does not Include Actual Conditionals

[straipsnis ir santrauka anglų kalba, santrauka lietuvių kalba] It can be thought that Gorgias’ argument on the non-existence consists of three sentences, the first one being an asseveration and the other two being conditionals. However, this paper is intended to show that there is no conditional in the argument, and that the second and third sentences only appear to be so. To do that, a methodology drawn from the framework of the mental models theory is used, which seems to lead to the true logical forms of these last sentences as well.

THE POSSIBILITIES OF DISJUNCTION IN THE MENTAL MODELS THEORY

Baratgin and colleagues have questioned certain aspects of the mental models theory related to disjunction. It is truth that, from this last theory, the paper authored by Baratgin et al. (2015) has already been responded. However, I try to further develop that response here by insisting in two important points of the theory: the role that modulation plays in it and the clear differences between its framework and standard logic. In this way, my main aim is to support to a larger extent, by means of theoretical arguments based on its general approach, the idea that the objections presented in the mentioned paper do not really impact the mental models theory.

Are the Aristotelian conversion rules easy for human thought?

Drawing on the theory of ‘mental models’, I have previously shown that the valid syllogisms in the Aristotelian logical system, including all of its figures and moods, are very easy for the human mind. Indeed, they can even be used to predict inferences that people can make with quantified sentences. In this paper, I further argue that, if mental models theory is correct, then also the Aristotelian conversion rules are not hard for the human mind. My account here again focuses on the distinction made by the mental models theory between canonical and noncanonical models.