In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals
Downloads
Resumo
Professor Allen (this issue) critiques the value of using “weird” hypotheticals to mine intuitions about legal systems. I respond by supporting the value of “thin” hypotheticals for providing information about how people reason generally, rather than for revealing peoples’ specific answers. I note that because legal systems are the products of many minds thinking about how other minds operate, the object of inquiry is metacognition—that is, understanding how reasoning works.Palavras-chave
legal epistemology, reasoning, metacognition, psychology and lawDownloads
Referências
Allen, R.J. (this issue): «Naturalized epistemology and the law of evidence revisited»
Allen, R.J. and Leiter, B., 2001: «Naturalized epistemology and the law of evidence», in Virginia Law Review, 87(8): 1491-1550.
Allen, R.J. and Pardo, M.S., 2019: «Relative plausibility and its critics», in International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(102): 5-58.
Cheng, P.W. & Holyoak, K.J., 1989: «On the natural selection of reasoning theories», in Cognition, 33(3): 285-313.
Cheng, P.W. and Novick, L.R., 1990: «A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction», in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4): 545-567.
Evans, J.S. and Stanovich, K.E., 2013: «Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate», in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3): 223-241.
Foot, P., 1978: «The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect», in Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 19-32.
Gigerenzer, G. and Hoffrage, U., 1995: «How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats», in Psychological Review: 102(4), 684-704.
Gilbert, E, Tenney, E.R., Holland, C. and Spellman, B.A., 2015: «Counterfactuals, control, and causation: Why knowledgeable people get blamed more», in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5): 643-658.
Hastie, R., 1999: «The role of stories in civil jury judgments», in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32(2): 227-240.
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A., 2010: «The weirdest people in the world?», in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3): 61-83.
Kahneman, D., 2011: Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S., 2002: «Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment», in Gilovich, T,, Griffin, D. &
Kahneman D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 49-81.
Kahneman, D. and Klein, G., 2009: «Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree», in American Psychologist, 64(6): 515-526.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., 1982: «On the study of statistical intuitions», in Cognition, 11(2): 123-141.
Manktelow, K.I. and Evans, J. St. B., 1979: «Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or non-effect?», in British Journal of Psychology, 70 (4): 477-488.
Niedermeyer, K.E., Kerr, N.L. and Messé, L.A., 1999: «Jurors’ use of naked statistical evidence: Exploring bases and implications of the Wells effect», in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (4): 533-542.
Peterson, C.R. and Beach, L.R., 1967: «Man as an intuitive statistician», in Psychological Bulletin, 68 (1): 29-46.
Petrocelli, J.V., Percy, E.J., Sherman, S.J. and Tormala, Z.L., 2011: «Counterfactual potency», in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (1): 30-46.
Quine, W.V.O., 1951: «Two dogmas of empiricism», in Philosophical Review, 60 (1): 20-43.
Roediger, H.L. and McDermott, K.B., 1995: «Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists», in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (4): 803-814.
Roese, N.J., 1997: «Counterfactual thinking», in Psychological Bulletin, 121 (1): 133-148.
Ryle, G., 1949: The Concept of Mind. New York: Harper & Row.
Saks, M.J. and Spellman, B.A., 2016: The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law. New York: NYU Press.
Schauer, F., 2008: «A critical guide to vehicles in the park», in New York University Law Review, 83 (4): 1109-1134.
Schein, C., 2020: «The importance of context in moral judgments», in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 (2): 207-215.
Smith, E.R. and DeCoster, J., 2000: «Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems», in Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (2): 108-131.
Spellman, B.A. and Kincannon, A., 2000: «The relation between counterfactual (“but for”) and causal reasoning: Experimental findings and implications for jurors’ decisions», in Law and Contemporary Problems: Causation in Law and Science, 64 (4): 241-264.
Spellman, B.A., Kincannon, A. and Stose, S., 2005: «The relation between counterfactual and causal reasoning», in Mandel, D.R., Hilton, D.J., & Catellani, P. (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking, London: Routledge Research: 28-43.
Spellman, B.A. and Mandel, D.R., 1999: «When possibility informs reality: Counterfactual thinking as a cue to causality», in Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8 (4): 120-123.
Spellman, B.A. and Schnall, S., 2009: «Embodied rationality», in Queen’s Law Journal, 35 (1): 117- 164.
Tenney, E.R., Cleary, H.M.D. and Spellman, B.A., 2009: «Unpacking the doubt in “beyond a reasonable doubt”: Plausible alternative stories increase not guilty verdicts», in Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31 (1): 1-8, [Revised for legal application and published with response and replies as: «“This other dude did it!” A test of the alternative explanation defense», in The Jury Expert, 21 (4): 37-42.]
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R., 2009: Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin.
Thomson, J.J., 1985: «The trolley problem», in Yale Law Journal, 94(6): 1395-1415.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1974: «Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases», in Science, 185 (4157): 1124-1131.
Wason, P.C., 1968: «Reasoning about a rule», in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20 (3): 273-281.
Wells, G.L., 1992: «Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough?», in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (5): 739-752.
Wright, E.F., Maceachern, L., Stoffer, E. and Macdonald, N., 1996: «Factors affecting the use of naked statistical evidence of liability», in Journal of Social Psychology, 136 (6): 677-688.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i2.22477Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Barbara A. Spellman
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.