The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Scientists Really Reason: Scientific Reasoning in Real-World Laboratories
Abstract
How do scientists think and reason? What are the psychological processes involved in scientific reasoning and discovery? These questions have been the focus of a large amount of research by cognitive scientists, historians, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists in the past forty years, and is one of the main concerns of this book. Many different approaches have been taken
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
(1963) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,085
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts
Latour, B. (1986) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 7,491
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Venkatesan, M., Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1986) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151491 · Cited by 4,347
On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task
Wason, P. C. (1960) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470216008416717 · Cited by 2,098
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094
Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach.
Poland, J. S., Eckardt, B. V., & Giere, R. N. (1991) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2185181 · Cited by 1,293
Dual space search during scientific reasoning
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · Cited by 1,058
Self-citationConstructing `Do-able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment
Fujimura, J. H. (1987) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631287017002003 · Cited by 616
Horace, F. J. (1969) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 331
Cited by
When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612 · Cited by 2,076
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865
Keil, F. C. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100 · Cited by 1,350
Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260208560187 · Cited by 1,161
The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1 · Cited by 1,032
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunbar, K.
- Venue
- The Nature of Insight
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 1994-11-07
- Pages
- 365-396
- OpenAlex
- W2128922142
- Cited by
- 746
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 179.70
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: How Scientists Really Reason: Scientific Reasoning in Real-World Laboratories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7551/mitpress/4879.003.0017
- The paper
- Dunbar, K. (1994). How Scientists Really Reason: Scientific Reasoning in Real-World Laboratories. The Nature of Insight. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4879.003.0017
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.
