and your non-belief is a sign of the particular experiences you have had.
You may note that in the very sentence you quote I refer to experiences, a rather critical part of my claim.
While I am not inclined to go into detail on personality research right now there is, in fact, a relationship between the strength of a person’s compartmentalisation ability and other important traits. Genetics plays a critical part in the formation of beliefs from stimulus and there is some information that can be inferred from the expression of said beliefs.
I apologize, but I am also confused. Is this an issue with gender, formality, or something else? I feel like I should be able to generalize you taking issue with that to other things, and also avoid all of those, but it would be helpful for you to explain.
I still feel that, in MoreOn’s terms, P ( good science | scientist is theist ) is close enough to P ( good science ) that starting from the position of distrust is probably over-filtering. I don’t think that resorting to explaining the personality traits that might explain that relation are important, unless we know an individual’s traits well enough to use those to estimate the kind of science she will produce.
There is a positive correlation between an individual thinking well in one area and thinking well in another area, a relationship which I do not consider terribly controversial. A (loosely) related post is the Correct Contrarian Cluster.
Do not refer to me as buster.
You may note that in the very sentence you quote I refer to experiences, a rather critical part of my claim.
While I am not inclined to go into detail on personality research right now there is, in fact, a relationship between the strength of a person’s compartmentalisation ability and other important traits. Genetics plays a critical part in the formation of beliefs from stimulus and there is some information that can be inferred from the expression of said beliefs.
I apologize, but I am also confused. Is this an issue with gender, formality, or something else? I feel like I should be able to generalize you taking issue with that to other things, and also avoid all of those, but it would be helpful for you to explain.
I still feel that, in MoreOn’s terms, P ( good science | scientist is theist ) is close enough to P ( good science ) that starting from the position of distrust is probably over-filtering. I don’t think that resorting to explaining the personality traits that might explain that relation are important, unless we know an individual’s traits well enough to use those to estimate the kind of science she will produce.
There is a positive correlation between an individual thinking well in one area and thinking well in another area, a relationship which I do not consider terribly controversial. A (loosely) related post is the Correct Contrarian Cluster.
Like being able to judge if some knowledge is dangerous and public relations?
Correlations. Not deductive certainties. A correlation that has perhaps been fully accounted for and then some in that case.
And do we really need to bring that up? Really, it’s all been said already...