So I’m curious. Pretending for a moment that you have actually approached this situation rationally, you must have had some significant amount of evidence that humans do not commit any kind of conjunction fallacy (except when “tricked”).
Given that you are so confident in this contention that you feel you can safely dismiss every one of the significant number of corroborating scientific studies a priori as “wrong and biased”, I’m wondering where got this evidence that humans never implement faulty probability estimation techniques except when being tricked, and why nobody else seems to have seen it.
you must have had some significant amount of evidence that humans do not commit any kind of conjunction fallacy
Nope. I don’t have any evidence you don’t have. I don’t think the disagreement is primarily about evidence but philosophical understanding and explanation.
Given that you are so confident in this contention that you feel you can safely dismiss every one of the significant number of corroborating scientific studies
I’ve looked at some. Found they weren’t even close to meeting the proper standards of science. I’ve run into the same problem with other kinds of studies in various fields before. I have general purpose explanations about bad studies. They apply. And no one, on being challenged, has been able to point me to any study that is valid.
I’m wondering where got this evidence that humans never implement faulty probability estimation techniques except when being tricked
I have explanations that probability estimating isn’t how people think in the first place, in general. See: Popperian epistemology.
nobody else seems to have seen it.
You mean, nobody else here seems to have seen it, on a site devoted to the idea of applying probability math to human thought.
So I’m curious. Pretending for a moment that you have actually approached this situation rationally, you must have had some significant amount of evidence that humans do not commit any kind of conjunction fallacy (except when “tricked”).
Given that you are so confident in this contention that you feel you can safely dismiss every one of the significant number of corroborating scientific studies a priori as “wrong and biased”, I’m wondering where got this evidence that humans never implement faulty probability estimation techniques except when being tricked, and why nobody else seems to have seen it.
Nope. I don’t have any evidence you don’t have. I don’t think the disagreement is primarily about evidence but philosophical understanding and explanation.
I’ve looked at some. Found they weren’t even close to meeting the proper standards of science. I’ve run into the same problem with other kinds of studies in various fields before. I have general purpose explanations about bad studies. They apply. And no one, on being challenged, has been able to point me to any study that is valid.
I have explanations that probability estimating isn’t how people think in the first place, in general. See: Popperian epistemology.
You mean, nobody else here seems to have seen it, on a site devoted to the idea of applying probability math to human thought.