Abstract
Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ plays a pivotal role in his critique of the heuristics and biases research program (HB). The basic idea is that (a) the experimental contexts deployed by HB are not representative of the
real environment and that (b) the differences between the setting and the real environment are causally relevant, because
they result in different performances by the subjects. However, by considering Gigerenzer’s work on frequencies in probability
judgments, this essay attempts to show that there are fatal flaws in the argument. Specifically, each of the claims is controversial:
whereas (b) is not adequately empirically justified, (a) is inconsistent with the ‘debiasing’ program of Gigerenzer’s ABC
group. Therefore, whatever reason we might have for believing that the experimental findings of HB lack experimental validity,
this should not be based on Gigerenzer’s version of the argument.
real environment and that (b) the differences between the setting and the real environment are causally relevant, because
they result in different performances by the subjects. However, by considering Gigerenzer’s work on frequencies in probability
judgments, this essay attempts to show that there are fatal flaws in the argument. Specifically, each of the claims is controversial:
whereas (b) is not adequately empirically justified, (a) is inconsistent with the ‘debiasing’ program of Gigerenzer’s ABC
group. Therefore, whatever reason we might have for believing that the experimental findings of HB lack experimental validity,
this should not be based on Gigerenzer’s version of the argument.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Pages 1-16
- DOI 10.1007/s11299-012-0098-9
- Authors
- Andrea Polonioli, Department of Philosophy, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD UK
- Journal Mind & Society
- Online ISSN 1860-1839
- Print ISSN 1593-7879