The Analytic Truth and Falsity of Disjunctions

Human verifications: Computable with truth values outside logic

Cognitive scientists treat verification as a computation in which descriptions that match the relevant situation are true, but otherwise false. The claim is controversial: The logician Gödel and the physicist Penrose have argued that human verifications are not computable. In contrast, the theory of mental models treats verification as computable, but the two truth values of standard logics, true and false, as insufficient. Three online experiments (n = 208) examined participants' verifications of disjunctive assertions about a location of an individual or a journey, such as: 'You arrived at Exeter or Perth'. The results showed that their verifications depended on observation of a match with one of the locations but also on the status of other locations (Experiment 1). Likewise, when they reached one destination and the alternative one was impossible, their use of the truth value: could be true and could be false increased (Experiment 2). And, when they reached one destination and the only alternative one was possible, they used the truth value, true and it couldn't have been false, and when the alternative one was impossible, they used the truth value: true but it could have been false (Experiment 3). These truth values and those for falsity embody counterfactuals. We implemented a computer program that constructs models of disjunctions, represents possible destinations, and verifies the disjunctions using the truth values in our experiments. Whether an awareness of a verification's outcome is computable remains an open question.

The relative difficulty of negations of conjunctions and disjunctions-a mental model perspective

A current issue in propositional reasoning is which of negated disjunctions and conjunctions are more difficult to understand. Using the possibility generation and evaluation tasks, we investigated how people make possibility inferences from negated compound assertions such as not (A and B) and not (A or B). We derive 4 different strategies of negation from the mental model theory (the enumerative negation, the eliminative negation, the element negation, and the clause negation) to predict the relative difficulty of possibility inference from not (A and B) and not (A or B). The results of three experiments convergently demonstrate that possibility inference from not (A or B) is harder than that from not (A and B). Moreover, an interpretation of negation as the complement of the set of possibilities allowed by a compound assertion is in line with the results of not (A and B) rather than not (A or B). The overall results favor the clause negation strategy over the other strategies.