title: Normativity, interpretation, and Bayesian models.
abstract: It has been suggested that evaluative normativity should be expunged from the psychology of reasoning. A broadly Davidsonian response to these arguments is presented. It is suggested that two distinctions, between different types of rationality, are more permeable than this argument requires and that the fundamental objection is to selecting theories that make the most rational sense of the data. It is argued that this is inevitable consequence of radical interpretation where understanding others requires assuming they share our own norms of reasoning. This requires evaluative normativity and it is shown that when asked to evaluate others' arguments participants conform to rational Bayesian norms. It is suggested that logic and probability are not in competition and that the variety of norms is more limited than the arguments against evaluative normativity suppose. Moreover, the universality of belief ascription suggests that many of our norms are universal and hence evaluative. It is concluded that the union of evaluative normativity and descriptive psychology implicit in Davidson and apparent in the psychology of reasoning is a good thing.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London London, UK.
authors.forename: Mike
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Oaksford
keywords: Bayesian argumentation; Bayesian models; Donald Davidson; evaluative normativity; psychology of reasoning; radical interpretation