The DOI matches its Crossref record; 289 of the 289 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning
Abstract
According to Aristotle, humans are the rational animal. The borderline between rationality and irrationality is fundamental to many aspects of human life including the law, mental health, and language interpretation. But what is it to be rational? One answer, deeply embedded in the Western intellectual tradition since ancient Greece, is that rationality concerns reasoning according to the rules of logic – the formal theory that specifies the inferential connections that hold with certainty between propositions. Piaget viewed logical reasoning as defining the end-point of cognitive development; and contemporary psychology of reasoning has focussed on comparing human reasoning against logical standards. Bayesian Rationality argues that rationality is defined instead by the ability to reason about un certainty. Although people are typically poor at numerical reasoning about probability, human thought is sensitive to subtle patterns of qualitative Bayesian, probabilistic reasoning. In Chapters 1–4 of Bayesian Rationality(Oaksford & Chater 2007), the case is made that cognition in general, and human everyday reasoning in particular, is best viewed as solving probabilistic, rather than logical, inference problems. In Chapters 5–7 the psychology of “deductive” reasoning is tackled head-on: It is argued that purportedly “logical” reasoning problems, revealing apparently irrational behaviour, are better understood from a probabilistic point of view. Data from conditional reasoning, Wason's selection task, and syllogistic inference are captured by recasting these problems probabilistically. The probabilistic approach makes a variety of novel predictions which have been experimentally confirmed. The book considers the implications of this work, and the wider “probabilistic turn” in cognitive science and artificial intelligence, for understanding human rationality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x · Cited by 48,949
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images.
Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.1984.4767596 · Cited by 17,949
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
A Mathematical Theory of Evidence
Shafer, G. (2020) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv10vm1qb · Cited by 11,711
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
The Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W., & Wiener, N. (1950) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3067010 · Cited by 9,801
Cited by
Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0028044 · Cited by 663
Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001525 · Cited by 440
Bayesian just-so stories in psychology and neuroscience.
Bowers, J. S., & Davis, C. J. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0026450 · Cited by 436
Foundations of human reasoning in the prefrontal cortex
Donoso, M., Collins, A. G. E., & Koechlin, E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1252254 · Cited by 406
Nessler, B., Pfeiffer, M., Buesing, L., & Maass, W. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003037 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Oaksford, M., & Chater, N.
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-84
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2010340556
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 289
- FWCI
- 18.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0140525x09000284
- The paper
- Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09000284
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.