> Empirically assessing the result after the fact is how we determine intelligence and reasoning in.. anything humans included.
It isn't, though. At least not exclusively, I'd argue not even primarily.
We look instead at how someone describes their thought process to see if it seems reasonable, whether they're using logically-valid reasoning forms, and whether their arguments bback up their claims.
It's common to say that someone's _reasoning_ is sound but their _conclusion_ is incorrect, due to <subtle observation they missed> or <invalid premise>.
This is why math teachers always tell students to show their work, and give out 0s for correct answers with no steps.
All of that is simply part of the "result" here though. Result in this discussion is the output of the black box, whether that's a machine or a human brain. I don't mean it in the "final answer" sense.
For example, all the conclusions the math teacher made are still ultimately from assessing the "result" of the student only.
It isn't, though. At least not exclusively, I'd argue not even primarily.
We look instead at how someone describes their thought process to see if it seems reasonable, whether they're using logically-valid reasoning forms, and whether their arguments bback up their claims.
It's common to say that someone's _reasoning_ is sound but their _conclusion_ is incorrect, due to <subtle observation they missed> or <invalid premise>.
This is why math teachers always tell students to show their work, and give out 0s for correct answers with no steps.