| Summary: | There is growing evidence that explanatory considerations influence how people change their degrees of belief in light of new information. Recent studies indicate that this influence is systematic and may result from people's following a probabilistic update rule. While formally very similar to Bayes' rule, the rule or rules people appear to follow are different from, and inconsistent with, that better-known update rule. This raises the question of the normative status of those updating procedures. Is the role explanation plays in people's updating their degrees of belief a bias? Or are people right to update on the basis of explanatory considerations, in that this offers benefits that could not be had otherwise? Various philosophers have argued that any reasoning at deviance with Bayesian principles is to be rejected, and so explanatory reasoning, insofar as it deviates from Bayes' rule, can only be fallacious. We challenge this claim by showing how the kind of explanation-based update rules to which people seem to adhere make it easier to strike the best balance between being fast learners and being accurate learners. Borrowing from the literature on ecological rationality, we argue that what counts as the best balance is intrinsically context-sensitive, and that a main advantage of explanatory update rules is that, unlike Bayes' rule, they have an adjustable parameter which can be fine-tuned per context. The main methodology to be used is agent-based optimization, which also allows us to take an evolutionary perspective on explanatory reasoning. • Uses computer simulations to show the ecological rationality of explanatory reasoning. • Connects computational results on explanatory reasoning with empirical results from psychology. • Shows the standard arguments in favor of Bayesian updating to be flawed. • Links to computer code that readers can easily use to run their own simulations and thereby to make further comparisons between update rules.
|
|---|