ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, we argued that an extreme version of the logicist view of cognitive science fails to provide a complete* account of real human reasoning, and that logic-based approaches to uncertain reasoning are computationally intractable. But how general are the implications of these claims? One way of assessing this is by considering various ways in which our arguments may be countered, and assessing how successful these are. Specifically, we claim that the scope of our arguments against logicist cognitive science includes relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986), semantic methods of proof such as mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983), and heuristic methods of reasoning.
