This article reviews a theory of explanatory coherence that provides a psychologically plausible account of how people evaluate competing explanations. The theory is implemented in a computational model that uses simple artificial neural networks to simulate many important cases of scientific and legal reasoning. Current research directions include extensions to emotional thinking and implementation in more biologically realistic neural networks.
EliasmithC.AndersonC.H. (2003). Neural engineering: Computation, representation and dynamics in neurobiological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
KundaZ.ThagardP. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284–308.
7.
RanneyM.SchankP. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. InReadS.J.MillerL.C.(Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp.245–274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
ReadS.J.Marcus-NewhallA. (1993). Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 429–447.
9.
SimonD. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 511–586.
10.
ThagardP. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 435–467.
11.
ThagardP. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
ThagardP. (1999). How scientists explain disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
ThagardP. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
ThagardP. (2003). Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 361–383.
15.
ThagardP. (2004). Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18, 231–249.
16.
ThagardP. (2005). Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkenntnis, 63, 295–317.
17.
ThagardP.(in press).The moral psychology of conflicts of interest: Insights from affective neuroscience. Journal of Applied Philosophy.
18.
ThagardP.LittA.(in press).Models of scientific explanation. InSunR.(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational cognitive modeling. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19.
WagarB.M.ThagardP. (2004). Spiking Phineas Gage: A neurocomputational theory of cognitive-affective integration in decision making. Psychological Review, 111, 67–79.
