Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
non-interpreted facts (as in Keller and Tergan
2005
). Thus, knowledge can only
exist inside our brains; data visualized in a VA environment becomes information
and, when interpreted by an analyst, this information becomes knowledge.
Inductive reasoning is the cornerstone of human reasoning because we are only
moderately good at deductive logic and make only moderate use of it (Arthur
1994
).
We use the meaning of premises and our knowledge to construct mental models
which contain less information than the models needed for deductive reasoning and
thus impose fewer demands on our working memory (Johnson-Laird
2006
). The
reasoning of spatio-temporal analysis is no exception; it is mainly inductive and
builds on knowledge that has already been acquired. More on reasoning from a VA
perspective can be found in Hall et al. (
2013
).
Reasoning about Space and Time Spatio-temporal reasoning is largely reasoning
about spatial and temporal relations. Goodwin and Johnson-Laird (
2005
) argue that
this kind of reasoning is based on spatial mental models. These models are iconic,
meaning that they are based on the concept of resemblance. The parts and relations
of the models (their structure) correspond to those of the situation they represent.
They explain that the clever thing about these kinds of models is that they can yield
novel conclusions that do not correspond to any of the premises used in their
construction. That means that in the same way as maps implicitly convey innumer-
able spatial relations that were not explicitly added during their making, the spatial
relations that follow from the premises can emerge from these models. However,
these models are not images (Goodwin and Johnson-Laird
2005
; Knauff
2009
);
rather, they are abstract topological structures.
Reasoning about space is one of the most common and basic forms of human
intelligence (Egenhofer and Mark
1995
; Levinson
2003
). The abundance of spatial
metaphors in every language ever studied tells us something about how central
spatial reasoning is to our thinking (Pinker
2009
). We create these metaphors not
just to co-opt words but to co-opt their inferential machinery. They allow us to lend
our inferential machinery for space and motion to other concepts, such as posses-
sion, circumstances, and time. Pinker (
2009
) states that these spatial concepts about
places, paths, and motions, along with a few other concepts about agency and
causation, appear to be the vocabulary and syntax of mentalese, the language of
thought.
According to Piaget
s theory of spatial development (Piaget and Inhelder
1956
),
'
children
s comprehension of spatial relations mirrors the general stages of their
cognitive development. The theory states that children learn to understand topo-
logical spatial properties first (when well under one year of age), followed by
projective spatial properties (direction) and finally metric spatial properties.
Freundschuh and Blades (
2013
) presented evidence in support of the theory through
their finding that there are differences between age groups when it comes to the
understanding of the locative terms
'
next
,
near
,
far
, and
away
. Also Tversky
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
(
2014
) have presented research in favor of Piaget
s theory.
We perceive our surroundings through our senses, with vision being the most
important for perceiving space. Vision works by means of two major cognitive
'
