趋利避害
|
摘要
本文一共包括12章。其中，第1章回顾了归纳问题的哲学和逻辑学研究历史。第2章对归纳推理的心理学研究作了综述，并参照康德的“先验哲学”、古德曼的“主观逻辑”以及施泰默的“进化主义”哲学、逻辑学研究思路，建构了关于归纳推理的心理学研究策略，推导出归纳推理应该具有领域特殊性特征，于是提出了本研究的基本假设：
命题2．1．“归纳推理是进化而来的领域特殊性机制”。
对命题2．1．的论证过程包括两个部分。
第一个部分包括第3章，主要任务是将基本假设转化为可以进行经验验证的中级假设。为了实现这种转换，本研究依据了进化心理学范式的功能分析研究方法，分4个步骤进行论证：
第1步：考察我们的祖先可能会面临什么样的适应性问题；
第2步：考虑这个适应性问题是否可以通过一个独立的机制来完成；
第3步：考察这个独立的机制将按照什么样的内在逻辑运行；
第4步：检验现代人的认知过程，看是否存在这种独立的逻辑运算方式。
这4个步骤中，前面两个属于理论推演，后两个属于经验验证，其中第3步提出经验研究的假设，第4步则验证假设。
按照这4个步骤，本研究首先论证了“归纳推理是一个适应性问题”，然后继续推演出“归纳推理领域特殊性机制”。接下来，更进一步推论：“获得利益”和“避免伤害”是最重要的适应性领域，在这两个领域中，“存在领域特殊性的归纳逻辑”。于是，本研究的基本假设被转换成为两个中级假设：
命题3．1：在“获得收益”和“避免伤害”两种条件下。人的归纳推理会表现出不同的特征。
命题3．2：在“获得收益”和“避免伤害”两种条件下，人的归纳推理采用两种不同的论证逻辑。在“获得收益”条件下，人采用充分必要性论证策略；在“避免伤害”条件下，人采用充分性论证策略。
论证的第二个部分包括第4～11章。
第4章对本研究所作的实验的背景信息进行了介绍。包括：1)自变量和因变量的定义方法；2)无关变量的控制技术；3)被试的招募办法。
第5章报告了实验1和实验2。两个实验的目的是分离归纳推理中的概念效应和相似性效应。结果发现人在进行归纳推理时，对概念信息的依赖胜于对相似性信息的依赖。
第6章的实验3和实验4分离了归纳推理中的前提数量效应和前提多样性效应。结果发现，前提多样性并不是人归纳推理的固有特征。人在组织归纳推理时，倾向于依据前提的数量而忽略前提的多样性。
第5章和第6章的4个实验确立了归纳推理作为一种先天“本能”的可能性。这是领域特殊性假设确立的基础。
第7章的实验5首先检验了“利”、“害”条件下的归纳推理心理效应是否存在差异。结果发现，在“利”和“害”两种条件下，被试的归纳推理表现出显著的差异，验证了作为假设的命题3．1．。
第7章还对特殊归纳和一般归纳的差异和类同作了分析，认为，特殊归纳和一般归纳的差异是由人对具体对象或抽象对象的表征差异导致的。总体上，两者只有量的差异而没有质性区别，所以在大多数研究中可以忽视两者的区别。
从第8章到第11章，6个实验(实验6～10和实验10B)验证了命题3．2。这一部分运用了反应时、眼动以及信号检查理论等研究技术。所有的结果都支持：在利／害条件下，人们的归纳推理分别采用了两种不同的论证逻辑。
最后，在第12章的总讨论中，本文提出一个整合性的理论假说：获利和避害是两种由自然选择塑造的先天的归纳推理机制：系统的科学教育能够培养出一套符合科学理性的推理习惯。因此，对于一个受过教育的人来说，可能拥有三套推理模式．它们在个体的日常思维中分别占不同的权重，因而形成了人的不同的思维风格。因此，只要测量人的三种推理模式的权重，就能够描述个体的思维风格、个性心理特征，以及预测其社会行为。此外，不同推理模式的假说能够解释许多社会冲突现象．
This paper contained 12 chapters totally.In Chapter I,philosophical and logicalstudies about inductive problem were recounted.And in Chapter 2,psychological studiesof inductive inference were reviewed.At last,the conclusion being established was that wecould not set up a domain general model about inductive inference.So the article erected abasic hypothesis:
Proposition 2.1.Inductive inference are domain specific mental machines shaped bynature selection.
The demonstration of Proposition 2.1 was made up of two parts.
The first part contained Chapter 3.In this chapter,the basic hypothesis wastransformed into two middle hypotheses.Guided by the paradigm of EvolutionaryPsychology,the transformation was achieved within 4 steps:
First step:to explore what kinds of adaptive problems could our ancestors meet.
Second step:to consider if it is possible that such adaptive problem could be dealt byspecific machine.
Third step:to explore what kind of inner logic did the specific machine run follow.
Fourth step:check-up the cognitive process of modern people,to examine if thespecific inner logic do exist.
Among the fours,the first and second step belonged to theoretic demonstration,andthe third was to erect the empirical hypothesis,and the fourth was to validate thehypothesis by empirical methods.The Chapter 3 stopped at the third step.
At first,“inductive inference was an adaptive problem”had been argued.From thisproposition,a new conclusion was deduced,that was:“inductive inference were domainspecific mental machines”.On the other side,“gain-benefit”and“avoid ing-injuring”weresuggested to be most important adaptive domain.Thus,the middle hypotheses wereestablished.They were expressed as two propositions:
Proposition 3.1.There would be different inductive inference performance under the conditions of“gain-benefit”and“avoiding-injuring”.
Proposition 3.2.There would be different inductive logic under the conditions of“gain-benefit”and“avoiding-injuring”.Under the condition of gain-benefit,thereasoning would be sufficient and hecessary:but with the condition of avoiding-injuring,the reasoning would just be sufficient.
The second part of demonstration was composed by Chapter 4～Chapter 11.
Chapter 4 introduced the background information of experimental study which wouldbe carried out.They included:1)the definition of independent variables and dependentvariables;2)the method to master the controlled variables;3)and how to recruit theparticipants.
In Chapter 5,two experiments,Exp.1 and Exp.2,had compared the different effectsaroused by category and similarity when inductive inference were engaged.The resultsshowed that as to make inductive inference,people would like to depend on information ofcategory more than that of similarity.
In Chapter 6,Exp.3 and Exp.4 had distinguished different effects of inductionbrought by amount of premise and variety of premise.The results showed that people weresensitive to premise-amount and tended to ignore premise-variety.
The purpose of former studies were to define the horizon of the whole research.Therewere two important meanings with the conclusions:
One:the hypothesis of domain specificity got a chance to be validated,because theadaptive domains were distinguished by category.
Two:it was possible to be sure that inductive inference could be an innate faculty,forevidences coming from infant cognition studies had show that very young infant hadexhibited the ability to realize amount.
In Chapter 7,Exp.5 had discovered that the performances of inductive inference wereentirely different as under conditions of“gain-benefit”and“avoid ing-injuring”.The resultvalidated one of two middle hypotheses,that was Proposition 3.1.
From Chapter 8 to Chapter 11,there were 6 experiments to be carry out todemonstrate Proposition 3.2 In this section,reaction time,eye movement,and signaldetection were used.All the results revealed that there were two different information processing to match the conditions of gain-benefit and avoiding-injuring.And also,underthe two conditions,people's reasoning followed two different logics.The conclusionsupported Proposition 3.2.
When two middle hypotheses had been demonstrated,the basic hypothesis,that wasProposition 2.1.,could then be validated.
At list,an integrative theory was put forward in Chapter 12.It suggested that gain-benefit and avoiding-injuring were two kinds of innate inductive inference machinesshaped by nature selection.But systemic science education could cultivate a scientificreasoning habit.Thus,there might be three kinds of reasoning fashions,and they wereendowed with different weight in people's thinking.This theory could explain manyphenomena of conflict in social behavior.It also suggested that if we measured the weightof three reasoning fashions with inductive inference tasks,the result would be used as anindex about people's thinking style.The index may be named as“inductive style”.It couldbe used to describe people's personality,and also to predict the other tendency of socialbehavior.
命题2．1．“归纳推理是进化而来的领域特殊性机制”。
对命题2．1．的论证过程包括两个部分。
第一个部分包括第3章，主要任务是将基本假设转化为可以进行经验验证的中级假设。为了实现这种转换，本研究依据了进化心理学范式的功能分析研究方法，分4个步骤进行论证：
第1步：考察我们的祖先可能会面临什么样的适应性问题；
第2步：考虑这个适应性问题是否可以通过一个独立的机制来完成；
第3步：考察这个独立的机制将按照什么样的内在逻辑运行；
第4步：检验现代人的认知过程，看是否存在这种独立的逻辑运算方式。
这4个步骤中，前面两个属于理论推演，后两个属于经验验证，其中第3步提出经验研究的假设，第4步则验证假设。
按照这4个步骤，本研究首先论证了“归纳推理是一个适应性问题”，然后继续推演出“归纳推理领域特殊性机制”。接下来，更进一步推论：“获得利益”和“避免伤害”是最重要的适应性领域，在这两个领域中，“存在领域特殊性的归纳逻辑”。于是，本研究的基本假设被转换成为两个中级假设：
命题3．1：在“获得收益”和“避免伤害”两种条件下。人的归纳推理会表现出不同的特征。
命题3．2：在“获得收益”和“避免伤害”两种条件下，人的归纳推理采用两种不同的论证逻辑。在“获得收益”条件下，人采用充分必要性论证策略；在“避免伤害”条件下，人采用充分性论证策略。
论证的第二个部分包括第4～11章。
第4章对本研究所作的实验的背景信息进行了介绍。包括：1)自变量和因变量的定义方法；2)无关变量的控制技术；3)被试的招募办法。
第5章报告了实验1和实验2。两个实验的目的是分离归纳推理中的概念效应和相似性效应。结果发现人在进行归纳推理时，对概念信息的依赖胜于对相似性信息的依赖。
第6章的实验3和实验4分离了归纳推理中的前提数量效应和前提多样性效应。结果发现，前提多样性并不是人归纳推理的固有特征。人在组织归纳推理时，倾向于依据前提的数量而忽略前提的多样性。
第5章和第6章的4个实验确立了归纳推理作为一种先天“本能”的可能性。这是领域特殊性假设确立的基础。
第7章的实验5首先检验了“利”、“害”条件下的归纳推理心理效应是否存在差异。结果发现，在“利”和“害”两种条件下，被试的归纳推理表现出显著的差异，验证了作为假设的命题3．1．。
第7章还对特殊归纳和一般归纳的差异和类同作了分析，认为，特殊归纳和一般归纳的差异是由人对具体对象或抽象对象的表征差异导致的。总体上，两者只有量的差异而没有质性区别，所以在大多数研究中可以忽视两者的区别。
从第8章到第11章，6个实验(实验6～10和实验10B)验证了命题3．2。这一部分运用了反应时、眼动以及信号检查理论等研究技术。所有的结果都支持：在利／害条件下，人们的归纳推理分别采用了两种不同的论证逻辑。
最后，在第12章的总讨论中，本文提出一个整合性的理论假说：获利和避害是两种由自然选择塑造的先天的归纳推理机制：系统的科学教育能够培养出一套符合科学理性的推理习惯。因此，对于一个受过教育的人来说，可能拥有三套推理模式．它们在个体的日常思维中分别占不同的权重，因而形成了人的不同的思维风格。因此，只要测量人的三种推理模式的权重，就能够描述个体的思维风格、个性心理特征，以及预测其社会行为。此外，不同推理模式的假说能够解释许多社会冲突现象．
This paper contained 12 chapters totally.In Chapter I,philosophical and logicalstudies about inductive problem were recounted.And in Chapter 2,psychological studiesof inductive inference were reviewed.At last,the conclusion being established was that wecould not set up a domain general model about inductive inference.So the article erected abasic hypothesis:
Proposition 2.1.Inductive inference are domain specific mental machines shaped bynature selection.
The demonstration of Proposition 2.1 was made up of two parts.
The first part contained Chapter 3.In this chapter,the basic hypothesis wastransformed into two middle hypotheses.Guided by the paradigm of EvolutionaryPsychology,the transformation was achieved within 4 steps:
First step:to explore what kinds of adaptive problems could our ancestors meet.
Second step:to consider if it is possible that such adaptive problem could be dealt byspecific machine.
Third step:to explore what kind of inner logic did the specific machine run follow.
Fourth step:check-up the cognitive process of modern people,to examine if thespecific inner logic do exist.
Among the fours,the first and second step belonged to theoretic demonstration,andthe third was to erect the empirical hypothesis,and the fourth was to validate thehypothesis by empirical methods.The Chapter 3 stopped at the third step.
At first,“inductive inference was an adaptive problem”had been argued.From thisproposition,a new conclusion was deduced,that was:“inductive inference were domainspecific mental machines”.On the other side,“gain-benefit”and“avoid ing-injuring”weresuggested to be most important adaptive domain.Thus,the middle hypotheses wereestablished.They were expressed as two propositions:
Proposition 3.1.There would be different inductive inference performance under the conditions of“gain-benefit”and“avoiding-injuring”.
Proposition 3.2.There would be different inductive logic under the conditions of“gain-benefit”and“avoiding-injuring”.Under the condition of gain-benefit,thereasoning would be sufficient and hecessary:but with the condition of avoiding-injuring,the reasoning would just be sufficient.
The second part of demonstration was composed by Chapter 4～Chapter 11.
Chapter 4 introduced the background information of experimental study which wouldbe carried out.They included:1)the definition of independent variables and dependentvariables;2)the method to master the controlled variables;3)and how to recruit theparticipants.
In Chapter 5,two experiments,Exp.1 and Exp.2,had compared the different effectsaroused by category and similarity when inductive inference were engaged.The resultsshowed that as to make inductive inference,people would like to depend on information ofcategory more than that of similarity.
In Chapter 6,Exp.3 and Exp.4 had distinguished different effects of inductionbrought by amount of premise and variety of premise.The results showed that people weresensitive to premise-amount and tended to ignore premise-variety.
The purpose of former studies were to define the horizon of the whole research.Therewere two important meanings with the conclusions:
One:the hypothesis of domain specificity got a chance to be validated,because theadaptive domains were distinguished by category.
Two:it was possible to be sure that inductive inference could be an innate faculty,forevidences coming from infant cognition studies had show that very young infant hadexhibited the ability to realize amount.
In Chapter 7,Exp.5 had discovered that the performances of inductive inference wereentirely different as under conditions of“gain-benefit”and“avoid ing-injuring”.The resultvalidated one of two middle hypotheses,that was Proposition 3.1.
From Chapter 8 to Chapter 11,there were 6 experiments to be carry out todemonstrate Proposition 3.2 In this section,reaction time,eye movement,and signaldetection were used.All the results revealed that there were two different information processing to match the conditions of gain-benefit and avoiding-injuring.And also,underthe two conditions,people's reasoning followed two different logics.The conclusionsupported Proposition 3.2.
When two middle hypotheses had been demonstrated,the basic hypothesis,that wasProposition 2.1.,could then be validated.
At list,an integrative theory was put forward in Chapter 12.It suggested that gain-benefit and avoiding-injuring were two kinds of innate inductive inference machinesshaped by nature selection.But systemic science education could cultivate a scientificreasoning habit.Thus,there might be three kinds of reasoning fashions,and they wereendowed with different weight in people's thinking.This theory could explain manyphenomena of conflict in social behavior.It also suggested that if we measured the weightof three reasoning fashions with inductive inference tasks,the result would be used as anindex about people's thinking style.The index may be named as“inductive style”.It couldbe used to describe people's personality,and also to predict the other tendency of socialbehavior.
引文
巴斯，D．M．(2007)．进化心理学：心理的新科学(熊哲宏，张勇，晏倩译)．上海：华东师范大学出版社
陈安涛，李红，杨耘云等(2008)．归纳推理是领域特殊还是领域一般的?一项实验研究证据．心理科学，31(3)：567～570
陈安涛，王乃弋等人．(2006)．类别归纳三时间过程和源定位——事件相关电位研究提供的电生理证据．心理学报，38(6)：815～823
陈晓平．(1994)．归纳推理与演绎推理的区别特征．逻辑与语言学习．，6
陈晓平．(1994)．归纳逻辑与归纳悖论．武汉：武汉大学出版社
陈晓平．(1996)．归纳推理及其哲学意义．社会科学战线．，4
陈晓平．(2003)．休谟问题评析—兼评“归纳问题”与“因果问题”之争．学术研究．，1
陈晓平．(2008)．休谟问题与先验范畴．哲学研究．，5
达尔文．(2005)．(周建人，叶笃庄，方宗熙译)．物种起源．北京：商务印书馆
邓庆生，任晓明．(2006)．归纳逻辑百年历程．北京：中央编译出版社
古德曼．(2007)．事实、虚构和预测．北京：商务印书馆
何向东．吕进．(2007)．归纳逻辑研究述评．自然辩证法研究．．23(3)：31～44
赫尔曼·哈肯[德]．(2005)．(凌复华 译)．协同学，大自然构成的奥秘．上海：上海世纪出版集团
赫胥黎．(1998)．(严复 译；冯君豪注解)．天演论：物竞天择适者生存．郑州：中州古迹出版社
亨利·柏格森．(2004)．(姜志辉 译)．创造进化论．北京：商务印书馆：38～39
胡志强．(2005)．科学推理：从贝叶思主义的观点看．自然辩证法通讯．，27(1)
胡竹菁．(2000)．演绎推理的心理学研究．北京：人们教育出版社
拉马克．(1809/1937)．动物哲学(沐绍良 译)．上海：商务印书馆，179～220
李富洪，李红，陈安涛等．(2006)．归纳摊理的多样性效应及其机制探索．心理科学进展，14(3)：360～367
李富洪．(2008)．归纳推理的假设过程及其神经机制．博士学位论文．西南大学．
龙长权，吴睿明，李红等，(2006)．3．5～5．5岁儿童在知觉相似与概念冲突情形下的归纳推理．心理学报，38(1)：47～55
罗素．(1948/1983)．人类的知识(张金言 译)．北京：商务印书馆，480
罗素．(1946/2006)．西方哲学史(何兆武，李约瑟 译)．北京：商务印书馆
蒋柯．(2006)．空间关系在归纳推理中的心理效应．硕士学位论文．华东师范大学．
蒋柯，熊哲宏．(2007)．从因果性到空间关系．自然辩证法研究．，23(7)
蒋柯，熊哲宏．(2008a)．“心理理论”、情绪和推理的关系辨析．山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)．，2
蒋柯，熊哲宏．(2008b)．为什么归纳推理的领域一般性模型是不可能的．南京师范大学学报(社会科学版)．3
蒋柯，李娟，熊哲宏．(2008)．归纳推理的相似性效应和概念效应比较．心理学探新．，28(3)
蒋柯．(2005)．当前儿童归纳推理研究的理论与范式．贵州大学学报(自然科学版)．，22(4)
江天骥．(1987)．归纳逻辑导论．长沙：湖南人们出版社
江晓原．(2006)．科学史十五讲．北京：北京大学出版社
卡米洛夫-史密斯．(2001)．超越模块性——认知科学的发展观．上海：华东师范大学出版社
康德．(2005)．纯粹理性批判(蓝公武 译)．北京：商务印书馆，87～90
康德．(1978)．未来形而上学导论(庞景仁 译)．北京：商务印书馆
培根．1984)．新工具(许宝骙 译)．北京：商务印书馆
桑标．(2003)．当代儿童发展心理学．上海：上海教育出版社
商卫星，熊哲宏．(2007)．进化心理学关于心理模块的领域特殊性思想．华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)，25(1)
铁省林．(2006)．休谟问题及波普尔的解决．广西社会科学．，10
托马斯·库恩．(2003)．科学革命的结构．北京：北京大学出版社
王墨耘，莫雷．(2006)．特征归纳的关联相似性模型．心理学报．38：333～341
王墨耘．(2008)．归纳推理的抽样理论．心理学报．40(7)：800～809
魏勇刚，李红．(2005)．儿童归纳推理中的单调性效应和非单调性效应研究．重庆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，5
维纳·B．(2004)．责任推断：社会行为的理论基础(张爱卿，邓葳 译)．上海：华东师范大学出版社
吴霞，李红．(2008)．儿童对人的行为进行归纳推理的多样性效应．西南大学学报(社会科学版)，34(1)
许波．(2005)．西方进化心理学概述——当代西方心理学发展的一种新取向．国外社会科学，1
熊立文．(2008)．归纳逻辑在现代的发展．哲学研究．，2
熊立文．(2004)．现代归纳逻辑的发展．北京：人们出版社
熊哲宏．(2002)．认知科学导论．武汉：华中师范大学出版社：344～348
熊哲宏，李其维．(2002)．“达尔文模块”与认知的“瑞士军刀”模型．心理科学，2 826～836
熊哲宏．(2004)．“模块心理学”的理论建构论纲．心理科学，6
熊哲宏．(2005)．“模块心理学”的挑战：反“文化心理观”．华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)，44(4)
熊哲宏．(2003)．是认知心理学，还是进化史——论“进化心理学”研究方法的内在矛盾．华中师范大学学报，4：134-140
休谟．(1999)．人类理智研究(吕大吉 译)．北京：商务印书馆
休谟．(1983)．人性论(关文运 译)．北京：商务印书馆
叶浩生．(2006)．有关进化心理学局限性的理论思考．心理学报，38(5)：784～790
亚里士多德．(2003)．工具论(余纪元 等译)．北京：中国人们大学出版社
张雷．(2007)．进化心理学．广州：广东高等教育出版社
张婷婷，李红，龙长权等．(2007)．归纳推理中的属性中心性效应．心理学报，39(5)
张勇，熊哲宏．(2005)．“察觉欺骗者模块”：推理的领域特殊性．华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)．23(4)
张增一．(2003)．达尔文的方法论与进化论争论．自然辩证法研究，19(2)
周丽洁，蒋柯．(2008)．从逻辑学到心理学．贵州教育学院学报．，28(3)
Anderson,J.R.(2000).Cognitive Psychology and its Implication(5~(th)edition).New York:Worth Publishers,332～345
Banks,W.P.(1970).Signal detection theory and human memory.Psychological Bulletin.74(2):81～100
Baron,J.(2000).Thinking and Decidin(3~(th)edition).,Cambridge University Press.
Bringsjord,S.(2001).Are we evolved computers?:A critical review of Steven Pinker's How the Mind works.Philosophical psychology,14(2)
Branconnier,R.J.(1982)Amitripty line selectively disrupts verbal recall from secondary memory of the normal aged.Neurobiology of Aging.,3(1):55～59.
Buehner,M.J.,Cheng,P.W.,Clifford,D.(2003).From covariation to causation:a test of the assumption of causal power.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning.Memory,and Cognitio.,29(6):1119～1140
Butters,N.(1985)Memory disorders associated with Huntington's Disease:Verbal recall,verbal recognition and procedural memory.Neuropsychologia.,23(6):729～743.
Caticha,A.(2004).Relative entropy and inductive inference.In G.Erickson,and Y.Zhai,(Eds.)Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering:23~(rd)(pp.75～98).New York:International Workshop
Condry,K.F.,Spleke,E.S.(2008)The development of language and abstract concepts:the case of natural number.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General.,137(1):22～28
Cosmides,L.(1989).The logic of social exchange:Has natural selection shaped how humans reason?Studies with the Wason selection task.Cognition,31:187～276
Cosmides,L.,Tooby,J.(1994).Origins of domain specificity:the evolution of functional organization.In Hirechfield and Gelman(Eds),Mapping the mind,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Donaldson,W.(1992).Measuring recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General.,121(3):275～277
Egan,J.P.,Indiana,U.(1958)Recognition memory and the operating characteristic.USAF Operational Applications Laboratory Technical Note,32:51～58
Ganea,P.A.,Shutts,K.,Spelke,E.S.,Deloache,J.S.(2007)Thinking of Thingd Unseen.Psychological Science.,18(8):734～739
Geary,D.C.,Huffman,K.J.(2002)Brain and cognitive evolution:Forms of modularity and functions of mind.Psychological Bulletin,128,667～698
Gelman,S.A.(1988).The Development of Induction within Natural Kind and Artifact Categories.Cognitive Psychology,20:65～95
Gelman,S.A.& Colry,J.D.(1990).The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird:Categories and inference in 2-year-old children.Development Psychology,26:796～804
Geol,V.,Geol,B.,Kapur,S.,Houle,S.(1998).Neuroanatomical correlates of humen reasoning.Journal of Coginitive Neuoscience,10(3):293～302
Geol,V.,Dolan,R.J.(2000).Anatomical segregation of component processes in an inductive inference task.Journal of Coginitive Neuoscience,12(1):110～119
Gould,S.J.,Lewontin,R.C.(1979)The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm:A critique of the adaptationist programme.Proceedings of the Royal Socity of London B.,205:581～598
Hadjichristidis,C.,Sloman,S.A.,Stevenson,R.J,Over,D.E.(2004).Feature centrality and property induction.Cognitive Science,28:45～74
Heit,E.(1998).A Bayesian analysis of some form of inductive reasoning.In M.Oaksford & N.Chanter(Eds.)Rational Models of Cognition.Oxford University Press:248～274
Heir,E.,Hahn,U.(2001).Diversity-based reasoning in children.Cognitive Psychology,47:243～273
Heir,E.,Hayes,B.K.(2005).Relations Among Categorization,Induction,Recognition,and Similarity:Comment on Sloutsky and Fisher(2004).Journal of Experimantal Psychology:General,134(4): 596～605
Gigerenzer,G.,Selten,R.(2001).Bounded Rationality:The Adaptive Toolbox.,London,England.The MIT Press.
Gigerenzer,G.,Todd,P.M.and the ABC Research Group.(1999).Simple heuristics that make us smart..New York,Oxford University Press
Gigerenzer,G.(2000).Adaptive Thinking.,New York,Oxford University Press
Gilovich,T.,Griffin,D.,Kahneman,D.(2002).Heuristics and biases.,Cambridge University Press.
Goodman.N.(1955).Fact,fiction and forecast.Cambridge,MA,US:Harvard University Press.
James,W.(1962).Principler of Psychology.New York:Dover.(Original work published 1890)
Kahneman,D.,Slovic,P.,Tversky,A.(Edt.).(1982).Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases.,Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman,D.& Miller,D.T.(1986).Norm theory:comparing reality to its alternatives.Psychological Review,93:136～153
Kahneman,D.,Tversky,A.(2000).Choices,Values,and Frames.,Cambridge University Press.
Klein,S.B.,Cosmides,L.,Tooby,J.,Chance,S.(2002).Decision and the evolution of memory:Multiple systerms,multiple funcuions.Psychological Review,109(2):306～329
Leahey,T.H.(2006)A History of Psychology:Main Currents in Psychological Thought.Sixth Edition,Pearson Prentice Hall(Pearson Education LTD)
L(?)pez,A.,Arran,S.,Coley,J.D.,Medin,D.L.,& Smith,E.E.(1997).The tree of life:Universal and cultural features of folkbiolog ical taxonomies and inductions.Cognitive Psychology,32:251～295
Lockhart,R.S.,Murdock,B.B.(1970).Memory and the theory of signal detection.Psychologucal Bulletin.74(2):100～109
Mandler,J.M.(1992).How to Build a Baby:Ⅱ.Conceptual Primitives.Psychological Review,99(4):587～604
Mandler,J.M.,(2000).What Global-Before-Basic Trend? Commentary on Perceptually Based Approaches to Early Categorization.Infancy,1:99～111
Mandler,J.M.(2000).Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Infancy.Cognition & Development,1(2):3～37
Mandler,J.M.,McDonough,L.(1998).On Developing a Knowledge Base in Infancy.Developmental Psychology,34(11):1274～1288
Mandler,J.M.(1988).How to Build a Baby:On the Development of an Accessible Representational System.Cognitive Development,3:113～136
McDonough,L.,Mandler,J.M.(1998).Inductive Generalization in 9-and 11-Month-Olds.Developmental Science,1(8):227～233
Markson,L.,Spelke,E.S.(2006)Infants' rapid learning about self-propelled object.Infancy.,9(1):45～71
Mohs,R.C.,Davis,K.L.(1982)A signal detectability analysis of the effect of physostigmine on memory in patients with Alzheimer's disease.Neurobioiogy of Aging.,3(2):105～110.
Nairne,J.S.,Thompson,S.R.,Pandeirada,J.N.S.(2007).Adaptive memory:survival processiong enhances retenction.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning Memory,and Cognition,33(2):263～273
Novick,L.R.,Cheng,P.W.(2004).Assessing interactive causal influence.Psychological Review.,111(2):455～485
Osherson,D.N.,Smith,E.E.,Willkie,O.,Lopez,A.,& Shafir,E..(1990).Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97:185～200
Rips,L.J.(1975).Inductive judgements about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,14:665～681
Rosch,E.H.(1973).Natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,4:328～350
Sanjana,N.E.,& Tenenbaum,J.B.(2003).Bayesian model of inductive generalization,In Becker,S.,Thrum,S.,and Obermayer,K(Ed),Advance in Neural Processing Systems 15,MIT Press
Sloman,S.A.(1993).Feature-Based Induction.Cognitive Psychology,25:231-280
Sloman,S.A.,Lagnado,D.A.(2004).The problem of Induction.In:Handbook of thinking and Reasoning,:93～116
Sloutsky,V.M.,Fisher,A.V.(2004)When development and learning decrease memory.Psychological Society.,15(8)
Sloutsky,V.M.,Fisher,A.V.(2004)Induction and categorization in young children:a similarity-based model.Journal od Experimental Psycholoy:General,133(2):166～188.
Spelke,E.S.,Kinzler,K.D.(2007)Core knowledge.Developmental Science.,10(1):89～96
Shutts,K.,Keen,R.,Spelke,E.S.(2006)Object boundaries influence toddlers' performancce in a search task.Developmental Science.,9(1):97-107
Stemmer,N.(1971).Three problems in induction.Synthese.,23:287～308
Stemmer,N.(1978a).A partial solut ion to the Goodman paradox.Philosophical Studies,34:177～185
Stemmer,N.(1978b).The reliability of inductive and our innate capacities,Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissensch sftstheorie.,Ⅸ/1
Stemmer,N.(1979).Projectible predicates.Synthese.,41:375～395
Stemmer,N.(1987).The hypothesis of other minds:is it the explanation?.Philosophical Studies,51:109～121
Stemmer,N.(2007a).Hume's solution of the Goodman paradox and the reliability riddle(Mill's problem).Philosophical Studies,132:137～159
Stemmer,N.(2007b).Quine's elim inativism and crystal spheres.J Gen Philss Sci,38:315～327
Takashi Yamauchi.(2005).Labeling Bias and Categorical Induction:Generative Aspects of Category Information.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Menory,and Cognition,31(3):538～553
Tenenbaum,Joshua B.,Griffiths,Thomas L.,Kemp,Charles(2006).Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.Cognitive Sciences,10(7):309-318.
Tenenbaum,J.B.;Xu,F.(2007).Word Learning as Bayesian Inference.Psychologcal Review.114(2):245～272
Tversky,A.,Kahneman,D.(1974)Judgment under uncertainty:heuristics and biases.Science,185:1124-1131
Thomas Hardy Leahey.(2006)A History of Psychology:Main Currents in Psychological Thought.Sixth Edition,Pearson Prentice Hall(Pearson Education LTD)
Tooby,J.,Cosmides,L.,Barrett,H.C.(2003).The second law of Thermodynamics is the first law of psychology:evolutionary developmental psychology and the theory of Tandem,coordinated
inheritances:comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt(2003).Psychological Bulletin,129(6):858～865
Wood,J.N.,Spelke,E.S.(2005)Infants' enumeration of actions:numerical discrimination and its signature limits.Developmental Science,8(2):173～181
陈安涛，李红，杨耘云等(2008)．归纳推理是领域特殊还是领域一般的?一项实验研究证据．心理科学，31(3)：567～570
陈安涛，王乃弋等人．(2006)．类别归纳三时间过程和源定位——事件相关电位研究提供的电生理证据．心理学报，38(6)：815～823
陈晓平．(1994)．归纳推理与演绎推理的区别特征．逻辑与语言学习．，6
陈晓平．(1994)．归纳逻辑与归纳悖论．武汉：武汉大学出版社
陈晓平．(1996)．归纳推理及其哲学意义．社会科学战线．，4
陈晓平．(2003)．休谟问题评析—兼评“归纳问题”与“因果问题”之争．学术研究．，1
陈晓平．(2008)．休谟问题与先验范畴．哲学研究．，5
达尔文．(2005)．(周建人，叶笃庄，方宗熙译)．物种起源．北京：商务印书馆
邓庆生，任晓明．(2006)．归纳逻辑百年历程．北京：中央编译出版社
古德曼．(2007)．事实、虚构和预测．北京：商务印书馆
何向东．吕进．(2007)．归纳逻辑研究述评．自然辩证法研究．．23(3)：31～44
赫尔曼·哈肯[德]．(2005)．(凌复华 译)．协同学，大自然构成的奥秘．上海：上海世纪出版集团
赫胥黎．(1998)．(严复 译；冯君豪注解)．天演论：物竞天择适者生存．郑州：中州古迹出版社
亨利·柏格森．(2004)．(姜志辉 译)．创造进化论．北京：商务印书馆：38～39
胡志强．(2005)．科学推理：从贝叶思主义的观点看．自然辩证法通讯．，27(1)
胡竹菁．(2000)．演绎推理的心理学研究．北京：人们教育出版社
拉马克．(1809/1937)．动物哲学(沐绍良 译)．上海：商务印书馆，179～220
李富洪，李红，陈安涛等．(2006)．归纳摊理的多样性效应及其机制探索．心理科学进展，14(3)：360～367
李富洪．(2008)．归纳推理的假设过程及其神经机制．博士学位论文．西南大学．
龙长权，吴睿明，李红等，(2006)．3．5～5．5岁儿童在知觉相似与概念冲突情形下的归纳推理．心理学报，38(1)：47～55
罗素．(1948/1983)．人类的知识(张金言 译)．北京：商务印书馆，480
罗素．(1946/2006)．西方哲学史(何兆武，李约瑟 译)．北京：商务印书馆
蒋柯．(2006)．空间关系在归纳推理中的心理效应．硕士学位论文．华东师范大学．
蒋柯，熊哲宏．(2007)．从因果性到空间关系．自然辩证法研究．，23(7)
蒋柯，熊哲宏．(2008a)．“心理理论”、情绪和推理的关系辨析．山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)．，2
蒋柯，熊哲宏．(2008b)．为什么归纳推理的领域一般性模型是不可能的．南京师范大学学报(社会科学版)．3
蒋柯，李娟，熊哲宏．(2008)．归纳推理的相似性效应和概念效应比较．心理学探新．，28(3)
蒋柯．(2005)．当前儿童归纳推理研究的理论与范式．贵州大学学报(自然科学版)．，22(4)
江天骥．(1987)．归纳逻辑导论．长沙：湖南人们出版社
江晓原．(2006)．科学史十五讲．北京：北京大学出版社
卡米洛夫-史密斯．(2001)．超越模块性——认知科学的发展观．上海：华东师范大学出版社
康德．(2005)．纯粹理性批判(蓝公武 译)．北京：商务印书馆，87～90
康德．(1978)．未来形而上学导论(庞景仁 译)．北京：商务印书馆
培根．1984)．新工具(许宝骙 译)．北京：商务印书馆
桑标．(2003)．当代儿童发展心理学．上海：上海教育出版社
商卫星，熊哲宏．(2007)．进化心理学关于心理模块的领域特殊性思想．华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)，25(1)
铁省林．(2006)．休谟问题及波普尔的解决．广西社会科学．，10
托马斯·库恩．(2003)．科学革命的结构．北京：北京大学出版社
王墨耘，莫雷．(2006)．特征归纳的关联相似性模型．心理学报．38：333～341
王墨耘．(2008)．归纳推理的抽样理论．心理学报．40(7)：800～809
魏勇刚，李红．(2005)．儿童归纳推理中的单调性效应和非单调性效应研究．重庆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，5
维纳·B．(2004)．责任推断：社会行为的理论基础(张爱卿，邓葳 译)．上海：华东师范大学出版社
吴霞，李红．(2008)．儿童对人的行为进行归纳推理的多样性效应．西南大学学报(社会科学版)，34(1)
许波．(2005)．西方进化心理学概述——当代西方心理学发展的一种新取向．国外社会科学，1
熊立文．(2008)．归纳逻辑在现代的发展．哲学研究．，2
熊立文．(2004)．现代归纳逻辑的发展．北京：人们出版社
熊哲宏．(2002)．认知科学导论．武汉：华中师范大学出版社：344～348
熊哲宏，李其维．(2002)．“达尔文模块”与认知的“瑞士军刀”模型．心理科学，2 826～836
熊哲宏．(2004)．“模块心理学”的理论建构论纲．心理科学，6
熊哲宏．(2005)．“模块心理学”的挑战：反“文化心理观”．华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)，44(4)
熊哲宏．(2003)．是认知心理学，还是进化史——论“进化心理学”研究方法的内在矛盾．华中师范大学学报，4：134-140
休谟．(1999)．人类理智研究(吕大吉 译)．北京：商务印书馆
休谟．(1983)．人性论(关文运 译)．北京：商务印书馆
叶浩生．(2006)．有关进化心理学局限性的理论思考．心理学报，38(5)：784～790
亚里士多德．(2003)．工具论(余纪元 等译)．北京：中国人们大学出版社
张雷．(2007)．进化心理学．广州：广东高等教育出版社
张婷婷，李红，龙长权等．(2007)．归纳推理中的属性中心性效应．心理学报，39(5)
张勇，熊哲宏．(2005)．“察觉欺骗者模块”：推理的领域特殊性．华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)．23(4)
张增一．(2003)．达尔文的方法论与进化论争论．自然辩证法研究，19(2)
周丽洁，蒋柯．(2008)．从逻辑学到心理学．贵州教育学院学报．，28(3)
Anderson,J.R.(2000).Cognitive Psychology and its Implication(5~(th)edition).New York:Worth Publishers,332～345
Banks,W.P.(1970).Signal detection theory and human memory.Psychological Bulletin.74(2):81～100
Baron,J.(2000).Thinking and Decidin(3~(th)edition).,Cambridge University Press.
Bringsjord,S.(2001).Are we evolved computers?:A critical review of Steven Pinker's How the Mind works.Philosophical psychology,14(2)
Branconnier,R.J.(1982)Amitripty line selectively disrupts verbal recall from secondary memory of the normal aged.Neurobiology of Aging.,3(1):55～59.
Buehner,M.J.,Cheng,P.W.,Clifford,D.(2003).From covariation to causation:a test of the assumption of causal power.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning.Memory,and Cognitio.,29(6):1119～1140
Butters,N.(1985)Memory disorders associated with Huntington's Disease:Verbal recall,verbal recognition and procedural memory.Neuropsychologia.,23(6):729～743.
Caticha,A.(2004).Relative entropy and inductive inference.In G.Erickson,and Y.Zhai,(Eds.)Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering:23~(rd)(pp.75～98).New York:International Workshop
Condry,K.F.,Spleke,E.S.(2008)The development of language and abstract concepts:the case of natural number.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General.,137(1):22～28
Cosmides,L.(1989).The logic of social exchange:Has natural selection shaped how humans reason?Studies with the Wason selection task.Cognition,31:187～276
Cosmides,L.,Tooby,J.(1994).Origins of domain specificity:the evolution of functional organization.In Hirechfield and Gelman(Eds),Mapping the mind,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Donaldson,W.(1992).Measuring recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General.,121(3):275～277
Egan,J.P.,Indiana,U.(1958)Recognition memory and the operating characteristic.USAF Operational Applications Laboratory Technical Note,32:51～58
Ganea,P.A.,Shutts,K.,Spelke,E.S.,Deloache,J.S.(2007)Thinking of Thingd Unseen.Psychological Science.,18(8):734～739
Geary,D.C.,Huffman,K.J.(2002)Brain and cognitive evolution:Forms of modularity and functions of mind.Psychological Bulletin,128,667～698
Gelman,S.A.(1988).The Development of Induction within Natural Kind and Artifact Categories.Cognitive Psychology,20:65～95
Gelman,S.A.& Colry,J.D.(1990).The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird:Categories and inference in 2-year-old children.Development Psychology,26:796～804
Geol,V.,Geol,B.,Kapur,S.,Houle,S.(1998).Neuroanatomical correlates of humen reasoning.Journal of Coginitive Neuoscience,10(3):293～302
Geol,V.,Dolan,R.J.(2000).Anatomical segregation of component processes in an inductive inference task.Journal of Coginitive Neuoscience,12(1):110～119
Gould,S.J.,Lewontin,R.C.(1979)The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm:A critique of the adaptationist programme.Proceedings of the Royal Socity of London B.,205:581～598
Hadjichristidis,C.,Sloman,S.A.,Stevenson,R.J,Over,D.E.(2004).Feature centrality and property induction.Cognitive Science,28:45～74
Heit,E.(1998).A Bayesian analysis of some form of inductive reasoning.In M.Oaksford & N.Chanter(Eds.)Rational Models of Cognition.Oxford University Press:248～274
Heir,E.,Hahn,U.(2001).Diversity-based reasoning in children.Cognitive Psychology,47:243～273
Heir,E.,Hayes,B.K.(2005).Relations Among Categorization,Induction,Recognition,and Similarity:Comment on Sloutsky and Fisher(2004).Journal of Experimantal Psychology:General,134(4): 596～605
Gigerenzer,G.,Selten,R.(2001).Bounded Rationality:The Adaptive Toolbox.,London,England.The MIT Press.
Gigerenzer,G.,Todd,P.M.and the ABC Research Group.(1999).Simple heuristics that make us smart..New York,Oxford University Press
Gigerenzer,G.(2000).Adaptive Thinking.,New York,Oxford University Press
Gilovich,T.,Griffin,D.,Kahneman,D.(2002).Heuristics and biases.,Cambridge University Press.
Goodman.N.(1955).Fact,fiction and forecast.Cambridge,MA,US:Harvard University Press.
James,W.(1962).Principler of Psychology.New York:Dover.(Original work published 1890)
Kahneman,D.,Slovic,P.,Tversky,A.(Edt.).(1982).Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases.,Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman,D.& Miller,D.T.(1986).Norm theory:comparing reality to its alternatives.Psychological Review,93:136～153
Kahneman,D.,Tversky,A.(2000).Choices,Values,and Frames.,Cambridge University Press.
Klein,S.B.,Cosmides,L.,Tooby,J.,Chance,S.(2002).Decision and the evolution of memory:Multiple systerms,multiple funcuions.Psychological Review,109(2):306～329
Leahey,T.H.(2006)A History of Psychology:Main Currents in Psychological Thought.Sixth Edition,Pearson Prentice Hall(Pearson Education LTD)
L(?)pez,A.,Arran,S.,Coley,J.D.,Medin,D.L.,& Smith,E.E.(1997).The tree of life:Universal and cultural features of folkbiolog ical taxonomies and inductions.Cognitive Psychology,32:251～295
Lockhart,R.S.,Murdock,B.B.(1970).Memory and the theory of signal detection.Psychologucal Bulletin.74(2):100～109
Mandler,J.M.(1992).How to Build a Baby:Ⅱ.Conceptual Primitives.Psychological Review,99(4):587～604
Mandler,J.M.,(2000).What Global-Before-Basic Trend? Commentary on Perceptually Based Approaches to Early Categorization.Infancy,1:99～111
Mandler,J.M.(2000).Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Infancy.Cognition & Development,1(2):3～37
Mandler,J.M.,McDonough,L.(1998).On Developing a Knowledge Base in Infancy.Developmental Psychology,34(11):1274～1288
Mandler,J.M.(1988).How to Build a Baby:On the Development of an Accessible Representational System.Cognitive Development,3:113～136
McDonough,L.,Mandler,J.M.(1998).Inductive Generalization in 9-and 11-Month-Olds.Developmental Science,1(8):227～233
Markson,L.,Spelke,E.S.(2006)Infants' rapid learning about self-propelled object.Infancy.,9(1):45～71
Mohs,R.C.,Davis,K.L.(1982)A signal detectability analysis of the effect of physostigmine on memory in patients with Alzheimer's disease.Neurobioiogy of Aging.,3(2):105～110.
Nairne,J.S.,Thompson,S.R.,Pandeirada,J.N.S.(2007).Adaptive memory:survival processiong enhances retenction.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning Memory,and Cognition,33(2):263～273
Novick,L.R.,Cheng,P.W.(2004).Assessing interactive causal influence.Psychological Review.,111(2):455～485
Osherson,D.N.,Smith,E.E.,Willkie,O.,Lopez,A.,& Shafir,E..(1990).Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97:185～200
Rips,L.J.(1975).Inductive judgements about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,14:665～681
Rosch,E.H.(1973).Natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,4:328～350
Sanjana,N.E.,& Tenenbaum,J.B.(2003).Bayesian model of inductive generalization,In Becker,S.,Thrum,S.,and Obermayer,K(Ed),Advance in Neural Processing Systems 15,MIT Press
Sloman,S.A.(1993).Feature-Based Induction.Cognitive Psychology,25:231-280
Sloman,S.A.,Lagnado,D.A.(2004).The problem of Induction.In:Handbook of thinking and Reasoning,:93～116
Sloutsky,V.M.,Fisher,A.V.(2004)When development and learning decrease memory.Psychological Society.,15(8)
Sloutsky,V.M.,Fisher,A.V.(2004)Induction and categorization in young children:a similarity-based model.Journal od Experimental Psycholoy:General,133(2):166～188.
Spelke,E.S.,Kinzler,K.D.(2007)Core knowledge.Developmental Science.,10(1):89～96
Shutts,K.,Keen,R.,Spelke,E.S.(2006)Object boundaries influence toddlers' performancce in a search task.Developmental Science.,9(1):97-107
Stemmer,N.(1971).Three problems in induction.Synthese.,23:287～308
Stemmer,N.(1978a).A partial solut ion to the Goodman paradox.Philosophical Studies,34:177～185
Stemmer,N.(1978b).The reliability of inductive and our innate capacities,Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissensch sftstheorie.,Ⅸ/1
Stemmer,N.(1979).Projectible predicates.Synthese.,41:375～395
Stemmer,N.(1987).The hypothesis of other minds:is it the explanation?.Philosophical Studies,51:109～121
Stemmer,N.(2007a).Hume's solution of the Goodman paradox and the reliability riddle(Mill's problem).Philosophical Studies,132:137～159
Stemmer,N.(2007b).Quine's elim inativism and crystal spheres.J Gen Philss Sci,38:315～327
Takashi Yamauchi.(2005).Labeling Bias and Categorical Induction:Generative Aspects of Category Information.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Menory,and Cognition,31(3):538～553
Tenenbaum,Joshua B.,Griffiths,Thomas L.,Kemp,Charles(2006).Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.Cognitive Sciences,10(7):309-318.
Tenenbaum,J.B.;Xu,F.(2007).Word Learning as Bayesian Inference.Psychologcal Review.114(2):245～272
Tversky,A.,Kahneman,D.(1974)Judgment under uncertainty:heuristics and biases.Science,185:1124-1131
Thomas Hardy Leahey.(2006)A History of Psychology:Main Currents in Psychological Thought.Sixth Edition,Pearson Prentice Hall(Pearson Education LTD)
Tooby,J.,Cosmides,L.,Barrett,H.C.(2003).The second law of Thermodynamics is the first law of psychology:evolutionary developmental psychology and the theory of Tandem,coordinated
inheritances:comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt(2003).Psychological Bulletin,129(6):858～865
Wood,J.N.,Spelke,E.S.(2005)Infants' enumeration of actions:numerical discrimination and its signature limits.Developmental Science,8(2):173～181