BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Elqayam & Evans

Dear Dr. Qwerty: When a target article or recent book has been accepted for BBS Open Peer Commentary, the editorial office sends out the Call for Commentary Proposals to thousands of people. Commentary proposals help the editors craft a well-balanced commentary invitation list. Please DO NOT submit a commentary article unless you are formally invited. If this target article interests you as a possible subject for commentary, please download the full un-copyedited preprint to see if you would like to *propose* a commentary. If you are interested, carefully follow the instructions below the target article information. Please keep in mind that we are not asking you to submit a commentary article -- but rather, a short proposal in order to be considered as an invited author after the proposal deadline. Also be aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can accommodate with formal invitations. NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: Target Article: "Subtracting 'Ought' From 'Is': Descriptivism Versus Normativism in the Study of the Human Thinking" Authors: Shira Elqayam and Jonathan St.B.T. Evans Deadline for Commentary Proposals: February 1, 2011 Abstract: We propose a critique of normativism, defined as the idea that human thinking reflects a normative system against which it should be measured and judged. We analyze the methodological problems associated with normativism, proposing that it invites the controversial is-ought inference, much contested in the philosophical literature. This problem is triggered when there are competing normative accounts (the arbitration problem), as empirical evidence can help arbitrate between descriptive theories, but not between normative systems. Drawing on linguistics as a model, we propose that clear distinction between normative systems and competence theories is essential, arguing that equating them invites an 'is-ought' inference; to wit, supporting normative 'ought' theories with empirical 'is' evidence. We analyze in detail two research programs with normativist features, Oaksford and Chater's rational analysis, and Stanovich and West's individual differences approach, demonstrating how in each case equating norm and competence leads to an is-ought inference. Normativism triggers a host of research biases in psychology of reasoning and decision making: focusing on untrained participants and novel problems, analyzing psychological processes in terms of their normative correlates, and neglecting philosophically significant paradigms when they do not supply clear standards for normative judgment. For example, in a dual-process framework, normativism can lead to a fallacious 'ought-is' inference, in which normative responses are taken as diagnostic of analytic reasoning. We propose that little can be gained from normativism that cannot be achieved by descriptivist computational-level analysis, illustrating our position with Hypothetical Thinking Theory and the theory of the suppositional conditional. We conclude that descriptivism is a viable option, and that theories of higher mental processing would be better off freed from normative considerations. Keywords: Bayesianism; competence; computational level analysis; descriptivism; is-ought inference; logicism; normative systems; normativism; rational analysis; rationality; research bias; understanding/acceptance principle Download Target Article Preprint: http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJournal/Call/Elqayam_preprint COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 1. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on. 2. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book. Please include names and affiliations of your co-authors, if applicable, in the text of your commentary proposal. SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions below. To suggest others as possible Commentators, or to nominate others for BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org. http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJournal/Inst/Assoc HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary invitation, you must submit a Commentary Proposal via our BBS Editorial Manager site: 1. Log-in as Author Username: CQwerty-545 Password: Qwerty875632 Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: http://www.editorialmanager.com/bbs. If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. You can also submit a request for missing username and password information if you have an existing account. 2. Submit New Manuscript Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. 3. Select Article Type Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. Commentary Proposal article types are temporarily created for each accepted target article or book. Only select the Commentary Proposal article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example; "Commentary Proposal (Elqayam)" 4. Enter Title Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Elqayam" 5. Add Co-Authors If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, include their names in the commentary proposal document you upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the Commentary Proposal itself. 6. Attach Files The only required submission Item is your Commentary Proposal in MSWord or RTF format. In the Description field please add the first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Elqayam" 7. Approve Your Submission Editorial Manager will process your Commentary Proposal submission and will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve. Once you have Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. **It is VERY important that you check and approve your Commentary Proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your submission.** 8. Editorial Office Decision At the conclusion of the Commentary Proposal period, the editors will review all the submitted Commentary Proposals. An undetermined number of Commentary Proposals will be approved and those author names will be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the commentary deadline. Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and revised target article will be posted for invitees. In the case of Multiple Book Review, invitees will be sent a copy of the book to be commented upon if requested. With Multiple Book Reviews, it is the book, not the précis article that is the target of commentary. Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official invitation! BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST If you DO NOT wish to receive Call for Commentary Proposals in the future, please reply to bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org, and type "remove" in the subject line. Sincerely, Ralph DeMarco Editorial Administrator, BBS Associate Editor, STM Journals Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10013-2473 Tel 001 212.337.5016 bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org http://journals.cambridge.org/bbs http://bbs.edmgr.com/