As described, for example, by Hornstein, the general linguistic framework given by the contemporary government-binding theory distinguishes several levels. This paper is intended to show that a differentiation of that kind, if such levels are understood in a different manner, can be clearly consistent with some developments in current cognitive science, and, in particular, with approaches such as the one of López-Astorga, which attempts to link proposals that, in principle, can be deemed as irreconcilable, such as the mental models theory and the idea that human cognition is led by logical forms. In this way, without accepting the characteristics that usually are assigned to the levels pointed out by the government-binding theory, it is argued that the role attributed to semantics and syntax by López-Astorga can be compatible with a general structure more or less akin to the one of this last theory.

A major hypothesis about conditionals is the Equation in which the probability of a conditional equals the corresponding conditional probability: p( if A then C ) = p( C|A ). Probabilistic theories often treat it as axiomatic, whereas it follows from the meanings of conditionals in the theory of mental models. In this theory, intuitive models (system 1) do not represent what is false, and so produce errors in estimates of p( if A then C ), yielding instead p( A & C ). Deliberative models (system 2) are normative, and yield the proportion of cases of A in which C holds, i.e., the Equation. Intuitive estimates of the probability of a conditional about unique events: If covid-19 disappears in the USA, then Biden will run for a second term , together with those of each of its clauses, are liable to yield joint probability distributions that sum to over 100%. The error, which is inconsistent with the probability calculus, is massive when participants estimate the joint probabilities of conditionals with each of the different possibilities to which they refer. This result and others under review corroborate the model theory. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13423-021-01938-5.

La teoría de la disciplina formal sostiene que el estudio de las matemáticas desarrolla las habilidades lógicas de los individuos. Attridge e Inglis realizaron un experimento con el fin de comprobar si esta teoría es correcta o no. Su conclusión fue que sus resultados mostraban que, si bien las matemáticas pueden, efectivamente, mejorar las capacidades lógicas, es necesario asumir la interpretación defectuosa del condicional. Sin embargo, López-Astorga contraargumentó que eran posibles otras interpretaciones de sus resultados, que tales resultados no prueban que la interpretación material del condicional no es válida y que la teoría de los modelos mentales también los puede explicar. En este trabajo, comento los problemas vinculados a las otras interpretaciones posibles propuestas por López-Astorga y trato de mostrar que la mejor opción para la interpretación de los resultados de Attridge e Inglis es asumir la teoría de la lógica mental.

The mental models theory is a current cognitive approach claiming that human intellectual activity is essentially about semantic possibilities and that syntax and logical form are not relevant. Many experimental results support this theory and its predictions. So, it appears to be justified to assume its main theses. However, in this paper, I argue that the acceptance of the mental models theory does not necessarily have to lead to a rejection of logical forms. Clear relationships between the theory and standard logic can be easily found, and I try to show this in two ways. On the one hand, I claim that the models that the theory assigns to sentences are compatible with truth tables. On the other hand, I also defend that the definitions of a connective by means of another one that can be given in standard logic hold in the mental models theory too, since the sentences that are equivalent in the former have exactly the same models in the latter.

Although it is many times said that progress can be observed in none of the different subfields that are part of philosophy, this paper is intended to show otherwise by means of an example. That example is based upon the L-concepts that are introduced by Carnap in his method of extension and intension, and it refers to the idea that the underlying machinery of this last method is able to solve problems such as those that reasoning exercises such as the suppression task raise in the cognitive science field nowadays. As it is accounted for, the key is to assume that the human mind is somehow linked to state-descriptions akin to those proposed by Carnap.