The Experimental Analysis of Reasoning: a Review of Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So1
Year: 1995
Type: book-review
Abstract: article in the New York Times describes the results of an Air Force report on "flying saucer wreckage" found in New Mexico in 1947.The Air Force now admits that the materials recovered were not the remains of a weather balloon, as re- ported at the time, but were parts of a device used to spy on faraway nuclear explosions.But although the incident has now been explained to most people's satisfaction, no one really expects the official explanation to sat- isfy flying saucer cultists.As a retired Air Force officer told the interviewers, "The psychology is simple: People believe what they want to believe.In New Mexico, flying sau- cerism has become a minor industry.There are whole museums dedicated to the presen- tations of outrageous fictions" (Broad, 1994, p. 1).And there are everyday reminders that hu- man reasoning is fallible.When we study hu- man behavior in the laboratory, we can often avoid problems caused by fallacious reason- ing.However, given the ubiquity of such rea- soning, it seems that behavior analysts should confront the determinants of fallacious reasoning in direct laboratory assessments.From that standpoint the topic of this book, the "fallibility of human reason in everyday life," should be of central interest to behavior analysts.Consider these statistics cited by Gilo- vich: (a) More people believe in extrasensory perception (ESP) than in evolution; (b) in the United States there are 20 times as many astrologers as there are astronomers.The au- thor points out that people do not hold er- roneous beliefs because they have not en-' Gilovich, T. (1991).How we know what isn't so: Thefal- libility of human reason in everyday life.
Authors: Stephanie Stolarz‐Fantino, Edmund Fantino
Language: English
Subfield: General Decision Sciences
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
Funder: National Science Foundation
OpenAlex ID: W1993034895