Filippo Vindrola (Ruhr-University Bochum)
This paper proposes a philosophy of science reconstruction of reasoning research. In reasoning research, an impressive body of experimental evidence seems to suggest that sometimes we deviate from norms of rationality. But what does it take to discriminate between "good" and "bad" reasoning? I argue that the toolbox of contemporary philosophy of science and argumentation theory might provide an answer to this foundational question. I reconstruct the argumentative structure of reasoning research, and discuss the role that auxiliary assumptions play in the interpretation of psychological data. Finally, I identify a set of necessary conditions for inferring reasoning errors from behavioral data.
