How (not) to argue about is/ought inferences in the cognitive sciences

Katinka J. P. Quintelier; Lieuwe Zijlstra

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00503

How (not) to argue about is/ought inferences in the cognitive sciences

Katinka J. P. Quintelier, Lieuwe Zijlstra

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

78 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We argue in favor of a reinterpretation of the invocations of Moore's naturalistic fallacy and Hume's is/ought problem with regard to statements in articles in contemporary cognitive science. Hume's and Moore's arguments concern the validity and soundness of deductive inferences while in our view contemporary is/ought statements in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences.

Original language	English
Article number	503
Number of pages	3
Journal	Frontiers in Psychology
Volume	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00503
Publication status	Published - May-2014
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00503Licence: CC BY

How (not) to argue about is/ought inferences in the cognitive sciencesFinal publisher's version, 312 KBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{34ce9f836afc455b86b2429c8f65186e,

title = "How (not) to argue about is/ought inferences in the cognitive sciences",

abstract = "We argue in favor of a reinterpretation of the invocations of Moore's naturalistic fallacy and Hume's is/ought problem with regard to statements in articles in contemporary cognitive science. Hume's and Moore's arguments concern the validity and soundness of deductive inferences while in our view contemporary is/ought statements in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences.",

author = "Quintelier, {Katinka J. P.} and Lieuwe Zijlstra",

year = "2014",

month = may,

doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00503",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",

issn = "1664-1078",

publisher = "Frontiers Media SA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How (not) to argue about is/ought inferences in the cognitive sciences

AU - Quintelier, Katinka J. P.

AU - Zijlstra, Lieuwe

PY - 2014/5

Y1 - 2014/5

N2 - We argue in favor of a reinterpretation of the invocations of Moore's naturalistic fallacy and Hume's is/ought problem with regard to statements in articles in contemporary cognitive science. Hume's and Moore's arguments concern the validity and soundness of deductive inferences while in our view contemporary is/ought statements in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences.

AB - We argue in favor of a reinterpretation of the invocations of Moore's naturalistic fallacy and Hume's is/ought problem with regard to statements in articles in contemporary cognitive science. Hume's and Moore's arguments concern the validity and soundness of deductive inferences while in our view contemporary is/ought statements in the cognitive sciences are better interpreted as defeasible inferences.

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00503

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00503

M3 - Article

SN - 1664-1078

VL - 5

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

M1 - 503

ER -