Computational levels and conditional inference: Reply to Schroyens and Schaeken (2003).
Mike Oaksford, Nick Chater · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2003
This article is a reply to W. Schroyens and W. Schaeken's (2003) critique of M. Oaksford, N. Chater, and J. Larkin's (2000) conditional probability model (CP) of conditional inference. It is argued that their meta-analysis does not falsify CP because the evidence may bear on more than one computational level of explanation. Moreover, it is argued that CP provides a rational account of more of the data than W. Schroyens and W. Schaeken's mental models theory. Other points are also addressed. It is suggested that W. Schroyens and W. Schaeken's model and CP converge on the importance of probabilistic prior knowledge in conditional inference. This is consistent with the normative literature, which (like CP) treats conditionals in terms of subjective conditional probabilities.