Diskussion:Urteilsheuristik

Hochgradig umstritten?

"Hochgradig umstritten" scheint mir eine sehr starke Kritik zu sein. Der zitierte Artikel von Fiedler zeigt im wesentlichen, dass die Befunde zwar "richtig" sind, die Erklärung aber schwach in dem Sinne, dass keine Modelle des genauen kognitiven Prozesses und seiner Bedingungen vorgelegt werden; weder von Kahneman und Tversky, noch (trotz Bewegung in die richtige Richtung) von Gigerenzer noch von dual-process-Theorien. (Fiedler et al. wörtlich: "the main conclusion is that the huge impact of Kahneman and Tversky’s work is not due to the accrual of confirmatory evidence, but, ironically, to its imperfectness and the persistent failure to clearly define and thus perhaps to falsify and discard the original heuristics […] Still, the accumulated empirical evidence on biases in judgments and decisions is impressive, and many incidental side-effects of this research industry are of practical and theoretical value. […] The most difficult and ambitious goal for future behavioural science is not so much to enhance empirical output but to develop theoretical frameworks that allow for critical tests of existing data as well as for the theory-driven refinement of raw hypotheses to be tested in cleverly designed studies. However, this situation – characterised by theory lagging behind empirical evidence – may not be peculiar to heuristics and biases but rather typical of current behavioural science.") --Ingrid Scharlau (Diskussion) 07:45, 21. Nov. 2023 (CET)