Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Interpretation of Confidence Intervals01:19

Interpretation of Confidence Intervals

8.8K
A confidence interval is a better estimate of the population than a point estimate, as it uses a range of values from a sample instead of a single value.
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...
8.8K
Typical Model Studies01:30

Typical Model Studies

815
Fluid mechanics model studies often utilize scaled-down systems to predict fluid behavior in full-scale environments, such as river flows, dam spillways, and structures interacting with open surfaces. Maintaining Froude number similarity in river models is crucial, as it replicates surface flow features like wave patterns and velocities.
815
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis01:23

Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis

359
Mechanistic models are utilized in individual analysis using single-source data, but imperfections arise due to data collection errors, preventing perfect prediction of observed data. The mathematical equation involves known values (Xi), observed concentrations (Ci), measurement errors (εi), model parameters (ϕj), and the related function (ƒi) for i number of values. Different least-squares metrics quantify differences between predicted and observed values. The ordinary least...
359
Models, Theories, and Laws01:16

Models, Theories, and Laws

7.4K
Scientists frequently use models to help them comprehend a specific collection of phenomena. In physics, a model is a condensed version of a physical system that is too complex to study thoroughly. One such example is the light wave model; unlike water waves, light waves are typically invisible to us. Nonetheless, it is helpful to think of light as being composed of waves, since investigations show that light behaves like water waves. Since it is impossible to visually see what is genuinely...
7.4K
Model Approaches for Pharmacokinetic Data: Distributed Parameter Models01:06

Model Approaches for Pharmacokinetic Data: Distributed Parameter Models

333
Pharmacokinetic models are mathematical constructs that represent and predict the time course of drug concentrations in the body, providing meaningful pharmacokinetic parameters. These models are categorized into compartment, physiological, and distributed parameter models.
The distributed parameter models are specifically designed to account for variations and differences in some drug classes. This model is particularly useful for assessing regional concentrations of anticancer or...
333
Conformity01:20

Conformity

32.5K
Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if that person does not agree with the group.
32.5K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Introduction to the Special Issue in Honor of Nick Chater Receiving the 2023 Rumelhart Prize.

Topics in cognitive science·2025
Same author

Social Rationality and Human Reasoning: Logical Expressivism and the Flat Mind.

Topics in cognitive science·2024
Same author

Bayes versus bias in human reasoning.

Nature human behaviour·2024
Same author

Could Bayesian cognitive science undermine dual-process theories of reasoning?

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2023
Same author

Explaining the implicit negations effect in conditional inference: Experience, probabilities, and contrast sets.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2020
Same author

New Paradigms in the Psychology of Reasoning.

Annual review of psychology·2019
Same journal

Characterizing facilitators and barriers to Hypoglycemic Confidence among patients with diabetes: a qualitative descriptive study.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
Same journal

Psychometric evaluation and refinement of the 7DHW questionnaire for the German population.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
Same journal

Editorial: Ethical leadership and workplace equity: mediating and moderating mechanisms in emotional labor and well-being.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
Same journal

How organizational support promotes teacher professional recognition: a perspective on teachers' autonomous learning and teaching abilities.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
Same journal

From "performance competition arena" to "psychological exemption zone": psychological safety mechanisms in reverse mobility.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
Same journal

General and sport-specific mental toughness in university students: associations with personality traits and physical activity.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 29, 2026

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

2.1K

Normativity, interpretation, and Bayesian models.

Mike Oaksford1

  • 1Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London London, UK.

Frontiers in Psychology
|May 27, 2014
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Evaluative normativity is essential for the psychology of reasoning, not detrimental. Understanding others requires assuming shared reasoning norms, supporting the integration of evaluative standards with descriptive psychology.

Keywords:
Bayesian argumentationBayesian modelsDonald Davidsonevaluative normativitypsychology of reasoningradical interpretation

More Related Videos

A Novel Bayesian Change-point Algorithm for Genome-wide Analysis of Diverse ChIPseq Data Types
12:39

A Novel Bayesian Change-point Algorithm for Genome-wide Analysis of Diverse ChIPseq Data Types

Published on: December 10, 2012

10.6K
Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

1.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 29, 2026

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

2.1K
A Novel Bayesian Change-point Algorithm for Genome-wide Analysis of Diverse ChIPseq Data Types
12:39

A Novel Bayesian Change-point Algorithm for Genome-wide Analysis of Diverse ChIPseq Data Types

Published on: December 10, 2012

10.6K
Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

1.2K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Philosophy of Logic

Background:

  • Debate exists on removing evaluative normativity from reasoning psychology.
  • A Davidsonian perspective offers a counter-argument to this exclusion.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present a Davidsonian response defending evaluative normativity in reasoning psychology.
  • To argue that understanding others necessitates assuming shared reasoning norms.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of arguments concerning rationality and evaluative normativity.
  • Examination of radical interpretation principles.
  • Empirical observation of participants evaluating arguments based on Bayesian norms.

Main Results:

  • Distinctions in rationality are more fluid than assumed.
  • Radical interpretation inherently requires evaluative normativity.
  • Participants evaluating arguments align with rational Bayesian norms.
  • Logic and probability are complementary, not competing, norms.

Conclusions:

  • Evaluative normativity is integral to descriptive psychology of reasoning.
  • Shared reasoning norms are universal, supporting evaluative claims.
  • The integration of evaluative normativity and descriptive psychology is beneficial.