Well, I’m mostly using these on people who haven’t read much or any philosophy, so those would work. That said, I think that a lot of smart people can get to the right answer even when there isn’t any consensus in the philosophical community.
If there is no consensus, how do you know what answer is “right”? Surely if it was a simple matter of computation or logic, there would be a consensus.
There are so many variables on where someone’s thinking could be biased or incomplete that if one is going to take these questions seriously, I think a heuristic approach would be most helpful rather than seeing if someone independently comes to your conclusion.
Off the top of my head I would give points for trying to falsify themselves, taking into account human bias (if they already had knowledge of the literature on bias), asking clarifying questions instead of going with an incomplete interpretation of the problem, a willingness to be criticized when the criticism is correct, and a willingness to brush badly constructed criticism as side.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a kangaroo have? If you call an arm a leg, how many legs does a human have? There’s a whole sequence on the trouble with putting too much store in the meanings assigned to words.
Are you looking for problems with a counter-intuitive, yet widely accepted answer among academics?
Well, I’m mostly using these on people who haven’t read much or any philosophy, so those would work. That said, I think that a lot of smart people can get to the right answer even when there isn’t any consensus in the philosophical community.
If there is no consensus, how do you know what answer is “right”? Surely if it was a simple matter of computation or logic, there would be a consensus.
As far as I can tell, he is judging “rightness” by how closely it approximates Less Wrong doctrine.
There are so many variables on where someone’s thinking could be biased or incomplete that if one is going to take these questions seriously, I think a heuristic approach would be most helpful rather than seeing if someone independently comes to your conclusion.
Off the top of my head I would give points for trying to falsify themselves, taking into account human bias (if they already had knowledge of the literature on bias), asking clarifying questions instead of going with an incomplete interpretation of the problem, a willingness to be criticized when the criticism is correct, and a willingness to brush badly constructed criticism as side.
Optimist, eh? :D
A standard Bayesian problem would work great. I paid my 13 year old nephew $1 to solve one.
Also: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?
Be careful how you reward people for mental tasks if you care about the long term cultivation of their mind.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a kangaroo have? If you call an arm a leg, how many legs does a human have? There’s a whole sequence on the trouble with putting too much store in the meanings assigned to words.
I’d settle for a well-thought-out answer, even if it’s not the one I agree with.