But, there’s another problem, and that is the fact that statistical and probabilistic thinking is a real damper on “intellectual” conversation.
It would also be fair to say that being intellectual can often be a dampener of conversation. I say this to emphasize that the problem isn’t statistics or probabilistic thinking—but rather forcing rigour in general, particularly when in the form of challenging what other people say.
If being statistical and probabilistic settles oft-discussed intellectual debates so thoroughly as dampen further discussion, that’s a great thing!
The goal is to get correct answers and move on to the unanswered, unsettled questions that are preventing progress; the goal is to NOT allow a debate to go any longer than necessary, especially—as Nisan mentioned—if the debate is not sane/intelligent.
It would also be fair to say that being intellectual can often be a dampener of conversation. I say this to emphasize that the problem isn’t statistics or probabilistic thinking—but rather forcing rigour in general, particularly when in the form of challenging what other people say.
I usually use the word “intellectual” to refer to someone who talks about ideas, not necessarily in an intelligent way.
If being statistical and probabilistic settles oft-discussed intellectual debates so thoroughly as dampen further discussion, that’s a great thing!
The goal is to get correct answers and move on to the unanswered, unsettled questions that are preventing progress; the goal is to NOT allow a debate to go any longer than necessary, especially—as Nisan mentioned—if the debate is not sane/intelligent.