The model theory runs counter to the view that human reasoning relies on rules of inference akin to those of a logical calculus. It is also incompatible with theories that posit rules akin to a probabilistic calculus. Which psychological theory provides the best account of naive human reasoning? The debate surrounding this issue has been long but fruitful: it has led to better experiments, more explicit theories, novel computational models, and extensions of the model theory of thinking and reasoning to new domains. Here we highlight alternative theories and some specific critiques of the model theory. The papers listed above are only a partial listing of the extant criticisms of the model theory. If you know of any other criticisms, or if you have published a critique yourself and would like it listed here, please let us know.
Note: Newer entries are designated as (new!) below.