Abstract

In this paper, we offer a novel normative analysis of the inclusion fallacy. This refers to the robust tendency of experimental participants to reason about categories in a way that violates the laws of probability. In contrast to the received view, we argue that participants’ preferences in this kind of task might be rationally defended. To this purpose, we employ the philosophical notion of truthlikeness as a normative benchmark for category-based induction. Our analysis complements the main empirical findings and theoretical predictions of the psychological literature and it explains the difficulties that probabilistic models have in treating cases like the inclusion fallacy.