What Bayesianism taught me. David Chapman criticizes "pop Bayesianism" as just common-sense rationality dressed up as intimidating math[1]: Bayesianism boils down to “don’t be so sure of your beliefs; be less sure when you see contradictory evidence.” Now that is just common sense. Why does anyone need to be told this? And how does [Bayes'] formula help? [...]The leaders of the movement presumably do understand probability. But I’m wondering whether they simply use Bayes’ formula to intimidate lesser minds into accepting “don’t be so sure of your beliefs.” What does Bayes's formula have to teach us about how to do epistemology, beyond obvious things like "never be absolutely certain; update your credences when you see new evidence"? I list below some of the specific things that I learned from Bayesianism. I'm interested in hearing what other people here would put on their own lists of things Bayesianism taught them.
So, without further ado, here are some things that Bayesianism taught me. The implications of the Moses Illusion. Not being from your neck of the woods, I am curious. Do you often have occassion to start sentences with "Maybe it's because I'm from Texas... "? I don't mean that in a critical way, it just strikes me that Texas is in many ways so very different than the urban coastal corridors where most of Americans are living, so I wonder if it's a common habit of speech for Texans? Well, I say it a lot because I now live in Los Angeles, California. So, a lot of... philosophies are a bit different and while I have personally changed a lot, I often find myself wondering if I think a certain way because of my upbringing.
Having said that, in this particular instance, it's more because of how integral religion is down there that I don't get Noah and Moses mixed up. Hey, now. People ask that question all the time in Texas, and most of us fall for it once or twice. A Test to Measure How Rational You Really Are. Okay, this and Esther's latest piece on how to commit psychological warfare on the unsuspecting both made me think about the importance of enthymemes/enthymematic argument.
(And I posted pretty much the same comment over there.) The short version is: Subject A wants to create a link between two otherwise unlinked entitites in the mind of Subject B. But Subject A can't come out and state there is a link (at first), because the link isn't rationally established and can't be asserted without a healthy scoop of skepticism.
So instead, Subject A presents the two entities in proximity to each other, and Subject B unconsciously makes the link for Subject A without even realizing the link has been established. This can really have an effect on how rational people are when they consider a subject. Obvious Example: Deodorant ads that use sexy people being intimate. Individual Example: When I was a kid, I knew precisely two boys named Ashley. Your Brain Is Flawed -- 12 Scientific Reasons Human Beings Are Wildly Irrational. January 14, 2013 | Like this article? Join our email list: Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email. The following article first appeared on io9. The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence. Before we start, it's important to distinguish between cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
Some social psychologists believe our cognitive biases help us process information more efficiently, especially in dangerous situations. 1. We love to agree with people who agree with us. 2. Somewhat similar to the confirmation bias is the ingroup bias, a manifestation of our innate tribalistic tendencies. 3. It's called a fallacy, but it's more a glitch in our thinking. Relatedly, there's also the positive expectation bias — which often fuels gambling addictions. The Sorites Paradox Isn’t. Clearly, a guy with no hair on his head is bald. But so is a guy with just one— if and only if we define bald as “a man with little or no hair.” If the guy has one hair and we define bald to mean “a man with no hair” then the man with one hair is not bald. So let us use “a man with little or no hair” as our definition and see where that gets us.
We assume that if a man with one hair is bald (by our definition), then so is a man with just two hairs. This is the Sorites, an ancient puzzle , also given with respect to grains and heaps of sand (the words is derived from the Greek heaped up ). “We seem to have reached the point where we say that a man with, say, 5,000 hairs is ‘bald’, but one with just one more tiny, wee hair is not. The man who says this, or anything like it, makes (at least) two mistakes. Indeed, rewrite the Sorites to remove the pseudo-word bald and replace it with X . My premises are almost certainly different than yours. 5 Ways Statistics Are Used to Lie to You Every Day.
Humans are terrible with numbers. They just don't fit in our brains. It's why scientists can hammer us with statistics about global warming but we will stop believing in it as soon as it gets cold where we live. It's not our fault -- the human brain just isn't built for this, and quite frankly, we don't really need to process huge numbers to get by in our everyday lives. You don't have to understand long term data trends in order to change a goddamn light bulb.
But there are some basics that everyone should know. Each of them sounds incredibly simple when it's explained, yet each of them will fool you again within days of reading this article. So try to keep in mind ... #5. Photos.com Sounds Like ... Here's a shocking statistic: The average income in the United States is around $70,000. Jupiterimages/Creatas/Getty Images"What the hell else are garages for?
" The Problem Is ... Photos.com"Unfair? Why Does It Matter? Creatas/Creatas/Getty Images"Every time you enter the room, I feel enormous. 38 Ways To Win An Argument—Arthur Schopenhauer - The India Uncut Blog - India Uncut. For all of you who have ever been involved in an online debate in any way, Arthur Schopenhauer’s “38 Ways To Win An Argument” is indispensable. Most of these techniques will seem familiar to you, right from questioning the motive of a person making the argument instead of the argument itself (No. 35), exaggerating the propositions stated by the other person (No. 1) , misrepresenting the other person’s words (No. 2) and attacking a straw man instead (No. 3).
It’s a full handbook of intellectual dishonesty there. Indeed, I generally avoid online debates because they inevitably degenerate to No. 38. The full text is below the fold. Many thanks to my friend Nitin Pai for reintroducing me to it. 38 Ways To Win An Argumentby Arthur Schopenhauer 1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. Phew. Fallacies A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The list of fallacies contains 209 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief. An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content. The discussion that precedes the long alphabetical list of fallacies begins with an account of the ways in which the term "fallacy" is vague.
Table of Contents 1. The more frequent the error within public discussion and debate the more likely it is to have a name. The term "fallacy" is not a precise term. More logic: talks and handouts. This page lists various notes, handouts, papers, and so on from the last few years. Many of these pieces are also linked to from other pages here or from old blog postings. They are of very varying levels of sophistication, difficulty and interest: but I haven’t tried to impose any more order on the list other than a rough (reverse) chronological order. Tennenbaum’s Theorem (a rewritten version of a reasonably accessible proof, with the old short discussion of its sometimes supposed conceptual significance which fed into the joint paper with Tim Button). 2013, revised 2014Critical Notice of Volker Halbach Axiomatic Theories of Truth and Leon Horsten The Tarskian Turn in Analysis 2013Review of Baaz et al.
Kurt Gödel and the Foundations of Mathematics: Horizons of Truth in Philosophia Mathematica 2012.Review of Penelope Maddy Defending the Axioms (with Luca Incurvati) in Mind 2012Is ‘no’ a force-indicator? Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Introduction to Argument Structure of a Logical Argument Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example: Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid.
Also it is important to note that an argument may use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true. Breaking down an argument into its components is a very useful exercise, for it enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyze them for validity. Examine your Premises Ad hominem Straw Man.