Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37748054›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Human verifications: Computable with truth values outside logic.

Philip N Johnson-Laird, Ruth M J Byrne, Sangeet S Khemlani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Inference and Imagination.Topics in cognitive science · 2026
    Review
  2. Imaginative Thought.Journal of cognition · 2026
    Article
  3. Human verifications: Computable with truth values outside logic.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Philip N Johnson-LairdDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544.ORCID 0000-0003-4461-1324
Ruth M J ByrneSchool of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2240-1211
Sangeet S KhemlaniNavy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375.ORCID 0000-0002-1158-553X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive scientists treat verification as a computation in which descriptions that match the relevant situation are true, but otherwise false. The claim is controversial: The logician Gödel and the physicist Penrose have argued that human verifications are not computable. In contrast, the theory of mental models treats verification as computable, but the two truth values of standard logics,

Indexed as

PhysiciansHumansSoftwarecomputabilitycounterfactualslogicmental modelstruth

Identifiers

PMID37748054
PMCPMC10556550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.