If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning
Yes.
how to make a calculation outside of intuition
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition.
The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you’ve read it before, it’s been updated now.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
I can agree, I shouldn’t have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.
Yes.
Yes.
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
How do you know? Did you do a literature search?
Well, it’s very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can’t be certain of it. I wouldn’t know what to search for. It’s like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock’s Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.
It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
Yes.
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
How do you know? Did you do a literature search?
https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you’ve read it before, it’s been updated now.
I can agree, I shouldn’t have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.
Yes.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
Well, it’s very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can’t be certain of it. I wouldn’t know what to search for. It’s like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.
In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock’s Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
I understand what you mean. Do you have any suggestions where to start?
Do you know how you can access scientific papers?
Yes, I have used pubmed, although I am not that good at searching yet. After that, I get the full papers from sci-hub.