The existing things can automatically recover and fix themselves

The current study tested the hypothesis for this experiment to find out if ontological mistakes bias concludes after the guidelines given in the moment or if they are based on the situation the person is in or it is their individual beliefs. The design of this study was based on a mixed design two-way ANOVA.  The factors were between subject factors. The level of each factor was ontologically correct and ontologically incorrect was the dependant variable. For the materials for this study we used within subjects ontologically correct and incorrect. An example maybe “mountains are friendly”. This phrase shows us it is clearly an object and has no feelings or sense of communication.  “Televisions are man-made” this phrase is more understandable gives us no sign of disbelief. Our statements were logically valid and invalid. Furthermore the results show the first effect being (F (1,145) = 11.78; p <0.01; ??2 = 0.08) which was significant .whereas the 2nd main effect was lesser than  one showing no significance.BackgroundThe term ontology is described as a study consisting of real life events or existence (Michael Crotty, 2005). Fundamental ontological understanding is about the attributes and differences between physical, mental and biological circumstances.  The understanding of mental phenomena is that living human beings are conscious people who have a mind. On the other hand a physical phenomenon also involves mental elements. This may include ideas or objects. Biological knowledge in regards to ontology includes getting rid of polluted energy and healing through it. This may be through differences in living in a natural way. An example to explain this may be 3-4 year olds. Children know that natural existing things can automatically recover and fix themselves if in a bad state whereas if a car is damaged in a crash they know well enough it not fix on its own (Backscheider,shatz ,& gelman,1993).  This knowledge is often misinterpreted by children and adults. E.g. children have a crucial system of object acknowledgement starting from infancy. Whereas adults do not avoid object knowledge in their day to day reasoning. This often results them in being object biased, a confusive state between processes and objects (Chen, 2007). Studies show the increase of bias from adults and how they see energy, electricity or gas as a materialistic object rather than a process (Reiner, solatta, chi, & Resnick, 2000). Ontological mistakes may occur by system processing. in the past studies have shown that when the human brain is engaged system 2 type of thinking it may interfere with the other type of system 2 process believing they both need to work at the same time. However performing one of system thinking makes us not as much of able to accomplish another system activity 2 within the same period regardless if both activities involve different processes e.g. cognitive, emotional or physical. Additionally when a person's mind is set on following a system 2 activity it outcomes in the system 1 in having a powerful effect on ones behavioural state.However according to critics they argue that ontological mistakes are just baseless statements and made up assumptions about human nature and the reality that focuses on social effects.  (Blackie, 2007) believed that ontology assumptions relate to how we see and believe social reality to be like.  Introduction:Ontology is a philosophical study focused on nature, existence and reality.  (Michael Crotty, 2005).  Ontological mistakes are based on fundamentally a phenomenological subject it is an approach that focuses on the study based on consciousness and objects from personal experience.   Ontological mistakes through statements occur more when time given to answer them is limited. This is since limited processing of time affects individuals by not thinking thoroughly and reverting their intuitive (Keleman & Rosset,2009).  This proposes that when people are under pressure of limited time they become naive and make errors due to not having enough time to cognitively process the statements which in such circumstances would cause ontological errors. Belief bias is a mental attitude that evaluates the strengths of arguments on being reasonable and believable conclusions instead of showing it fully supports the given conclusion. In a (1983) study conducted by evans,barston and pollard they tested their participants by asking if a presented conclusion can be with logic be reason from given situations.  These four arguments included a valid with plausible conclusion, a valid argument  which is not worth believing, an invalid statement with a agreeable conclusion and lastly an invalid statement with a false conclusion. Through this study (evans,barston and pollard, 1983) found the main effects for believability arguments and valid. They found that their subjects were more likely to follow a decision when they believed the reasoning was a valid argument instead of being invalid. Also when an ending was a statement that they believe is real rather than unbelievable and impossible to ever occur. This study and effect therefore represents belief biases through reasoning.For our study we purposed to exhibit the result which believability may have upon logical reasoning, furthermore to research if ontological mistakes happen to interact with logical reasoning in the same way. From our test we were anticipating whether in reasoning of variance incorporated the arguments validity and believability. And if participants would support problems that are believable as being valid more than unbelievable arguments despite being encouraged to disregard actual believability problems. Secondly we also envisioned if participants could consider not showing their support to ontologically valid statements more than ontologically incorrect statements.Designour study was based on a mixed design 2 way anova test. The factors were Ontological correctness and 'group' . these factors  had 2 number of levels  and ontologically correct and ontologically incorrect were both within subject variables. The dependant variable was ontology or validity.Materials and ProcedureBefore taking part in the test all ethical considerations were put in place. Consent forms were handed out and before signing a set of instructions were said out to all participants about the study and they held the right to withdraw at any time with anonymity being a top priority of all participants. The materials used for this study was a psychology lab that enabled all participants to complete their test individually on their own given computers under no communication with other people and their answers were upon their own thinking. Results(F (1,145) = 11.78; p <0.01; ??2 = 0.08) first main effect of ontological correctness the first main effect was significant of ontological correctness. As you can see in figure 1 more of the syllogisms were rated as valid if they were ontologically correct compared to those that were ontological incorrect.Second main effect 'group' (f (1,145)= f<1) the f value being lesser than 1.The Interaction of the second effects shows us the f value being less than 1 therefore the results to the second mains effect tells us this is a non significance result.  Figure 1….The interactions that depicted in Figure 1 examines the process of ontological correctness and in-correctness. The main from our findings from figure 1 shows us the blue line (ontological correctness ) was significant due to participants rating the syllogisms highly as correct rather than incorrect. The findings therefore support our hypothesis by the results given that people support problems that are believable and at the same time valid. This tells us that despite being given incorrect syllogisms too ,participants show to believe the correct problems more having practised logical thinking. Previous literature by (Backscheider,shatz ,& gelman,1993). which stated children hold high beliefs through when it comes to reality and existance. He described how children know how things like a wounded sheep can eventually recover whereas if a window is broken it will stay broken and cannot fix on its own. However our study supports this literature despite our study being focused towards adults it was still effective when examining if they were likely to choose invalid instead of valid but despite that the conclusion they chose what was believable. And this tells us that they also know the facts of existance, non existance and naturality.   A peer review by done by (Blackie,2007) criticised the theories and studies of ontological mistakes of showing its lack of belief towards ontology, its errors and its sarcasm. In other words this review conflicts with the studies of Backscheider,shatz,& gelman,1993) of the errors children and adults may face when it comes to reasoning and belief bias.a study in which (Chen,2007) found adults to being biased and confused when it comes to processes and objects. This supports our findings of how some participants were confused at some problems presented to them and became biased. However what (Blackie,2007) is trying to argue is that this is only the way people show their beliefs of natural and existing things and how people believe things to be and are not confused. This conflicts theories, and previous and current studies like ours as we believe if their was belief bias it may have been due to the time limit,or not properly cognitively processing the information or other factors that may have arisen during the experiment.  People will to a lesser extent are likely to support a argument or problem if it is logically valid but at the end the argument is incorrect and unbelievable. These findings mean that for cognitive psychology this argument suggests that when you guide participants and general people about ontology and its correctness and its in-correctness about living things and objects it starts to mix in with their reasoning and becomes the reason of them stopping believing an argument which may be invalid whilst reasoning .this means when instructions given before tests are conducted in psychological research not only do we not deceive participants in taking part but we also help them by encouraging them to choose the right arguments and help them prevent errors.  Another factor that interfered whilst participants were reasoning was the believability argument. Participants were beforehand told about how believability may arise in reasoning problems and despite this they should not let it affect their decisions they chose to consider arguments that were believable highly and chose most importantly the statements overall that were logical and natural to existing world. This through a psychological perspective helps us understand that despite given instructions participants followed what they believed to be logical and did not bias believability. From the findings presented to us , for future I would like to move through this study by if I was about to do this study again I would follow on changing the statements. This would be because the use of same or similar statements and syllogisms makes it easier for people to understand which ones are valid/invalid or correct/incorrect. Introducing updated experiments will help determine if people are aware of ontological mistakes or have errors based on confusion. I believe the weakness of this study was the statements they were easy and basic, used more than once in previous studies and the repeating of certain statements. For future I would like improvements on the content of the experiment design, also with the instructions only to give participants a brief summary of the test and not give too much information that will encourage them to make decisions based more on the information rather than their intelligence. This will be useful because it will give us findings that may prove to be different to the one we have gathered. Our main findings were that most people despite time limit and valid statements with a unbelievable conclusion chose at the end to avoid making ontological errors and went for what was correct and chose their natural instincts.    

x

Hi!
I'm Dominick!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out
x

Hi!
I'm Dominick!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out