In the field of psychology, psychologists have long strived for completely objective experiments on humans. The objectivity and the precision of the outcome are mandatory for scientifically acceptable results. In an article entitled "Analysis and Rationality" by L. Jonathan Cohen, the author states that experiments on humans cannot demonstrate the absence or presence of a human intuition that generates a set of correct logical principles. Cohen states that the sentences stated within the experiment do not convey everything in the exchange, as humans apply contextual circumstances to communication with the experimenter. He adds that an experimenter needs to explain the differences between what is stated and what is implied, thereby making the subject no longer a layman. Furthermore, Cohen states that humans have a different understanding of the connective terms like "or" and "if" on an individual level which inhibit their performance on these psychological experiments. These claims combine to a less than substantial argument against the field of experimental psychology.
             Cohen states that the act of communication is much more than a combination of sentences. A human conversation is regulated by its relevance, brevity, informativeness and necessity (71). Psychologists use symbolic formulas to replace premises and assume that all other factors of communication are void. If a subject is given a statement like "if p then q," he may reason with himself extensively over whether the conditional is convertible because they are unfamiliar symbols. It is also noted that given a premise in English in the format of "if p then q," the same reasoning may arise due to the subject's examination of the situation. Each subject brings his own culture, education and idiosyncrasies to the experiment and may be distracted by certain details within the premise or the experiment. Cohen makes ...