Visibly deceptive and non-truth-seeking antics like this are not going to work around here. I suggest that you and woozle read up on cognitive biases and bayesian epistemology before trying to argue for this here. One handy debiasing technique:
If you do this well, and post your writeup on your personal website or the like, you might be able to get folk to take you seriously, or you might realize that the epistemic procedures you’re using (selective search for confirming examples and ‘allied’ sources, etc) aren’t very truth-tracking.
In the meantime, this stuff doesn’t belong in the comments section of this post.
Visibly deceptive and non-truth-seeking antics like this are not going to work around here.
Can the same be said for Ad-hominem attacks?
Well, I’ve googled some more and it seems that there is a lot of controversy regarding the passenger lists of the different planes. I think that this is a complicated issue and I’m not willing to spend more time to research/discuss it.
You are suggesting I do this? Have you done it yourself, did it work?
In the meantime, this stuff doesn’t belong in the comments section of this post.
Well, all this started as a comment on a paragraph of the original post. Maybe the OP shouldn’t have chosen an example where considerable controversies exist and that is politically sensitive.
You are suggesting I do this? Have you done it yourself, did it work?
Yes, I’ve used it with respect to several scientific and ideological issues where I had significant incentives or potential biases favoring one view or another. It helps to bring issues into sharp focus that were previously not salient. In psych experiments it’s one of the only immediately effective debiasing techniques.
Have you posted your hypothetical apostasies somewhere? Posting some sample hypothetical apostasies and perhaps followup analyses about how writing them reduced the authors’ biases would probably increase the motivation in others to try this seriously. (I commented to Nick’s post that I tried his suggestion, but didn’t get very far.)
That’s somewhat complicated by the fact that I’ve used it most effectively with regards to things you can’t say. But I am going to add this to my task queue, and either post one of my previous ones or do a new one. I’ve been considering ones on consequentialism and weirdness.
Again, you make wacky claims without mentioning the devastating refutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks#Cases_of_mistaken_identity
Visibly deceptive and non-truth-seeking antics like this are not going to work around here. I suggest that you and woozle read up on cognitive biases and bayesian epistemology before trying to argue for this here. One handy debiasing technique:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/02/write-your-hypothetical-apostasy.html
If you do this well, and post your writeup on your personal website or the like, you might be able to get folk to take you seriously, or you might realize that the epistemic procedures you’re using (selective search for confirming examples and ‘allied’ sources, etc) aren’t very truth-tracking.
In the meantime, this stuff doesn’t belong in the comments section of this post.
Can the same be said for Ad-hominem attacks?
Well, I’ve googled some more and it seems that there is a lot of controversy regarding the passenger lists of the different planes. I think that this is a complicated issue and I’m not willing to spend more time to research/discuss it.
You are suggesting I do this? Have you done it yourself, did it work?
Well, all this started as a comment on a paragraph of the original post. Maybe the OP shouldn’t have chosen an example where considerable controversies exist and that is politically sensitive.
Yes, I’ve used it with respect to several scientific and ideological issues where I had significant incentives or potential biases favoring one view or another. It helps to bring issues into sharp focus that were previously not salient. In psych experiments it’s one of the only immediately effective debiasing techniques.
Have you posted your hypothetical apostasies somewhere? Posting some sample hypothetical apostasies and perhaps followup analyses about how writing them reduced the authors’ biases would probably increase the motivation in others to try this seriously. (I commented to Nick’s post that I tried his suggestion, but didn’t get very far.)
That’s somewhat complicated by the fact that I’ve used it most effectively with regards to things you can’t say. But I am going to add this to my task queue, and either post one of my previous ones or do a new one. I’ve been considering ones on consequentialism and weirdness.