University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Behavioral Ethics Lab Philosophy, Politics and Economics 4-2009 Intuitive and Reflective Inferences Hugo Mercier University of Pennsylvania,
[email protected] Dan Sperber Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/belab Part of the Cognition and Perception Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, Social Psychology Commons, and the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation (OVERRIDE) Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2009). Intuitive and Reflective Inferences. In J. Evans and K. Frankish (Eds.), In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond (pp. 149-170). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/belab/6 For more information, please contact
[email protected]. Intuitive and Reflective Inferences Abstract Much evidence has accumulated in favor of such a dual view of reasoning (Evans, 2003, in press; for arguments against, see Osman, 2004). There is however some vagueness in the way the two systems are characterized. Instead of a principled distinction, we are presented with a bundle of contrasting features - slow/fast, automatic/controlled, explicit/implicit, associationist/rule based, modular/central - that, depending on the specific dual process theory, are attributed more or less exclusively to one of the two systems. As Evans states in a recent review, “it would then be helpful to have some clear basis for this distinction”; he also suggests that “we might be better off talking about type 1 and type 2 processes” rather than systems (Evans, in press). We share the intuitions that drove the development of dual system theories. Our goal here is to propose in the same spirit a principled distinction between two types of inferences: ‘intuitive inference’ and ‘reflective inference’ (or reasoning proper).