Group Minds and Explanatory Simplicity

In this paper, we explore the argument that the behavior of a group on the psychological state of an individual is better than the interpretation of behavior from a point of view of group mental state. Because it is simpler than group level interpretation, I am interested in the assumption that the individual level explains better. Three different simple metrics are considered in this paper. With these indicators, we think that interpretation at the individual level is not as simple as group level options. Our conclusion is that discussions on group thinking should not pay attention to problems that explain simplicity.

Quantitative simplicity assertion is not a matter of argument because it is a means of selecting from among competing interpretations. Lewis, anti-fact officials said, "Although qualitative simplicity is generally considered good in philosophical or empirical assumption, it does not recognize estimates that contribute to quantitative simplicity" . It tends to use quantitative and simple explanation, but should not believe this is a guide to the truth ("Metaphysics of Attributes", Mind 105 (1996), 1-80)

10 The writers here are listed in alphabetical order; both writers have equally contributed to this work. I appreciate Anthony O'Hear for presenting Royal Institute of Philosophy and helpful questions and suggestions to the audience. I appreciate Robert Rupert's useful comments on the earlier draft of this article.

The concept of simplicity can be understood from the following observations. A theory that reduces special or temporary assumptions should be given preference. Simplicity is the most important constraint for explaining breadth; people should not sacrifice simplicity by temporarily adjusting the theory to enhance explanatory width. Darwin believes that the auxiliary hypothesis he uses to explain the facts, such as the blank in the fossil record, provides a brief explanation than other creationists.

Consistency judgment of the theoretical interpretation is based on three criteria of explanatory width, simplicity, analogy (Thagard, 1978). The criterion for interpreting the width is the most important criterion for choosing the best explanation. It captures the idea that the theory is more descriptive than the competition if the theory explains more facts. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution explains various facts that can not be explained by time interpretation by accepted creationists.

The analogy that embeds the breadth of interpretation, simplicity, and the TEC's principle establishes a relationship explaining consistency. These principles are symmetry, interpretability, analogy, data prioritization, contradiction, competitiveness, and acceptability. As stated by Thagard (1992), the principle of symmetry considers coherence and incoherence to be symmetric. The interpretation principle says that the assumption is consistent with its interpretation. The principle of interpretation is the most important principle in determining the consistency of interpretation in order to establish most consistency. The principle of analogy is the same as analogy standard. According to the principle of data prioritization, the credibility of observations and arguments about empirical summaries is a good reason to accept them.