Counterintuitively, experts are best suited to deviate from SPRs grounded in theory because they have a better understanding of when the SPR will apply.
Experts in SPR, experts in the field in question, or only experts in both?
One such conceptual argument is given by Gerd Gigerenzer. He begins by noting that from a frequentist point of view, it doesn’t make sense to assign probabilities to one-time events, as subjects are often asked to do. Hence subjects’ answers can’t be judged as errors since they are valid under a possible interpretation.
Gigerenzer has a 50% chance of being right about this. Either he is, or he isn’t. That’s logic.
Interesting post.
Experts in SPR, experts in the field in question, or only experts in both?
Gigerenzer has a 50% chance of being right about this. Either he is, or he isn’t. That’s logic.