Val

Karma: 559

Val Apr 19, 2016, 9:17 PM
0 points
in reply to: johnlawrenceaspden’s comment on: How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?
If this would be enough to prove the effectiveness of rain-dancing, then we would develop 30 different styles of rain-dance, test each of them, and with a very high chance we would get p<0.05 on at least one of them.

Sadly, the medical industry is full of such publications, because publishing new ideas is rewarded more than reproducing already published experiments.

Val Apr 19, 2016, 8:43 PM
0 points
on: How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?
Since then I found a partially relevant, but very simple and effective “puzzle”.

There are four cards in front of you on the desk. It is known, that every card has a numerical digit on one side, and a letter from the English alphabet on the other side.

You have to verify the theory that “if one side of the card has a vowel, the other side has an even number”, and you are only allowed to flip two cards.

The cards in front of you are:

A T 7 2

Which cards will you flip?

(I wrote partially relevant because this is not an example for an unfalsifiable theory. The theory is falsifiable and the puzzle is solvable, the main point is that most people would pick the wrong answer because they will not try to falsify the theory)

Val Apr 12, 2016, 1:05 PM
0 points
in reply to: ike’s comment on: How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?
I agree, but I see a connection to falsifiability in that most people don’t even try to falsify their theories in this game, even if it would be possible.

A much better example than the 2-4-6 game would be one where the most obvious hypothesis was unfalsifiable.

Val Apr 12, 2016, 3:38 AM
5 points
in reply to: ike’s comment on: How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?
This and Russel’s teapot are just unverifiable claims, and not a study of understanding how a system works which would fail because we committed an innocent mistake.

Besides, they have strong ideological undertones, so all they would manage to do is to cater for the ego of those who agree with their ideological implications, and make angry those who don’t. They won’t really convince anyone.

Val Apr 11, 2016, 9:38 PM
6 points
on: The Sally-Anne fallacy
I often encountered (when discussing politics, theology or similar subjective topics) a fallacy which is similar to this one, or maybe it can be seen as the reverse of it.
- A: ice is hot, therefore 2+2=4
- B: No, ice is not hot, but even if it was, it still wouldn’t be a good proof for 2+2=4
- A: So you don’t believe in the obvious truth that 2+2=4 ?
Also, sometimes A might try to prove 2+2=5 with the same strategy.

How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?

ValApr 11, 2016, 9:26 PM

9 points

58 comments2 min readLW link

Val Apr 10, 2016, 9:14 AM
0 points
in reply to: SquirrelInHell’s comment on: Consider having sparse insides
Not necessarily. One might sincerely believe in the core values promoted by Christianity (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) without being a biblical literalist. Christianity includes a wide spectrum of views, not only what how some people define it, which might even be just a parody of Christianity.

To summarize it, I don’t know her so I cannot judge whether she’s just lying for a social benefit or not, but I find it plausible that she might not be lying, or might not behave like this solely as a facade for a social benefit.

Val Apr 6, 2016, 7:58 PM
1 point
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Open Thread April 4 - April 10, 2016
You are right, I meant bihacking, my mistake.

My concern was based on the observation how the word phobia (especially in cases of homophobia and xenophobia) is increasingly applied to cases of mild dislike, or even to cases of failing to show open support.

Val Apr 4, 2016, 3:01 PM
6 points
in reply to: Fluttershy’s comment on: Open Thread April 4 - April 10, 2016
I fear a time will come when people who don’t want to try polyhacking bihacking will be labeled as homophobic. And that will just further dilute the term.

Val Apr 1, 2016, 2:33 PM
31 points
in reply to: Huluk’s comment on: Lesswrong 2016 Survey
Besides saying that I have taken the survey...

I would also like to mention that the predictions of probabilities of unobservable concepts was the hardest one for me. Of course, there are some in which i believe more than in some others, but still, any probability besides 0% or 100% seems really strange for me. For something like being in a simulation, if I would believe it but have some doubts, saying 99%, or if I would not believe but being open to it and saying 1%, these seem so arbitrary and odd for me. 1% is really huge in the scope of very probable or very improbable concepts which cannot be tested yet (and some may never ever be).

… before losing my sanity in trying to choose the percentages I would find plausible at least a few minutes later, I had to fill them based on my current gut feelings instead of Fermi estimation-like calculations.

Val Apr 1, 2016, 2:23 PM
2 points
on: Consider having sparse insides
Please explain what you mean by saying “it is easier to...”.

Judging by the examples, for me the opposite seems to be much easier, if we define easiness as how easy it is to identify with a view, select a view, or represent a view among other people.

Do you instead use the term as “it will be more useful for me”? For the average person, it is much easier to identify oneself with a label, because it signifies a loyalty to a well-defined group of people, which can lead to benefits within that group.

Saying “I’m a democrat” or “I’m a liberal” or “I’m a conservative” makes it much easier for other people who also identify with that group to give you recognition, while saying “I am a seeker of accurate world-models, whatever those turn out to be” will probably lead to confusion or even misunderstandings.

Even if we are not talking about expressing your views to others, but to formulate your views for yourself, for most people it seems that labels are still much easier than to come up with their own definitions of beliefs. If we talk about easiness, it’s much easier to choose from existing templates than define a custom one.

However, it might happen that I just misunderstood you because of how we interpret the meaning of “easiness”.

Val Mar 31, 2016, 10:12 PM
9 points
on: What makes buying insurance rational?
Insurance for small consumer products are not rational for the buyer, for the very reasons which were presented in the question. If you can afford the loss of the item, it’s better to not buy insurance and just buy the item again in the case it is lost or destroyed. Why insurance companies are still making money out of extended warranties for consumer products, is because they have good marketing and people are not perfectly rational. Gambling, lottery, etc. exist for the same reasons, despite having a negative expected value.

However, if you cannot afford the loss, it is advantageous to buy insurance. There are things which people own but cannot replace on short notice, and suffer greatly if they do lose it. For example, houses, or business-crucial items. You can afford to pay the insurance, but cannot afford losing the item in question. Taking a loan to replace it might be much more expensive than the insurance.

There are situations when losing something might cost you much more than its monetary value. Losing your house might make you homeless. Losing you car, if you require it for your job, might cost you your job. Having an expensive machine you make your living out of, losing it might put you out of business. Not having enough money to afford an expensive operation might cost you your life if you don’t have the health insurance which would have paid for it.

Val Mar 15, 2016, 4:35 AM
2 points
in reply to: Lyyce’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
Still, it would be very wrong to describe rightists as thinking that everyone should starve who can’t support themselves. Many people on the political right also practice and/or believe in charity.

Val Mar 7, 2016, 3:58 PM
2 points
in reply to: elharo’s comment on: Rationality Quotes Thread March 2016
For a counter-example, see the story of almost every lottery winner ever, who was poor before winning the lottery, and ended up poor again soon enough.

Val Mar 4, 2016, 6:18 PM
0 points
on: [paper] [link] Defining human values for value learners
Let’s assume such an AI could be created perfectly.

Wouldn’t there be a danger of freezing human values forever to the values of the society which created it?

Imagine somehow the Victorian people (using steampunk or whatever) managed to build such an AI, and that AI would forever enforce their values. Would you be happy with every single value it enforced?

Val Feb 27, 2016, 6:36 PM
11 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Is altruistic deception really necessary? Social activism and the free market

It’s hard to come up with a good counter-argument to “slavery is bad”.

It’s not that hard if you look at them from a contemporary perspective instead of a modern one.

Let’s consider a tribal level of society which can barely survive using solely a subsistence economy, where previously the only thing you could do to prisoners after a fight with a neighboring tribe was to kill them all. You can’t release them because the enemy will have higher numbers in the next battle, and you can’t afford to just feed them because you can barely survive yourself.

Now enter a reform: they are allowed to live, but they have to work. (just a side remark: this is what slavery meant for the ancient tribes in the old testament, which often gets quoted outside context to claim that Christianity “advocates” slavery). Also, if I remember correctly, it only lasted at most seven years? Even in that case it is of course cruel by modern standards, but our current economic model allows for the upkeep of prisoners of war, and for a rehabilitative prison system supported by taxpayer money instead of penal labor. A stone age or early bronze age economy didn’t.

Val Feb 18, 2016, 4:56 PM
1 point
on: The ethics of eating meat

Meat requires us to kill animals. Factory farmed animals are in a considerable amount of pain for most of their life.

Animals living in the wild are in a considerable amount of pain when they starve to death, freeze to death, are chased by predators, and are eaten by predators in many cases while they are still alive.

I’m not holding your arguments invalid. Indeed, they are valid arguments to be made. However, they are not without their counter-arguments.

Another problem not yet addressed is what to do with the excess domesticated animals in the theoretical case when meat eating dropped significantly. What to do with their species in the theoretical case meat eating disappeared? (Not that these are any strong arguments in favor of eating meat, but might be strong arguments against banning eating meat)

Val Feb 17, 2016, 9:36 PM
2 points
on: Open Thread Feb 16 - Feb 23, 2016
What might be the cause of the perceived difference between the atheists/nontheists in Europe and in the USA?

I have the general feeling that the average atheist in the USA, when asked about religion, will be very open about believing religion to be either evil or ridiculously stupid, and will make at least a few remarks about how idiot those lunatics must be who believe that there are invisible people living on the top of the clouds. On the other hand, in Europe you are more likely to hear that “well, I’m not very religious”, but many would culturally still identify as a Christian, and will held marriages, child naming ceremonies, funerals etc. in a church, and might even rarely, but occasionally go to church on a bigger festival (like Christmas) because it looks or feels nice.

I wonder why. I know much more Europeans than Americans, so it might be that the louder voices are better heard from a group I have less contact with, or it might be that because in the USA the Christian fundamentalists are louder than in Europe, so the atheist fundamentalists are also louder.

I’m fully aware that I based this observation mostly on people I have contact with, and in at least a small part being influenced by popular culture, but I don’t know of any exhaustive research or survey comparing the cultural standpoint of nontheists specifically regarding the differences between Europe and the USA.

Val Feb 17, 2016, 4:40 PM
4 points
on: Critique on my attempt to teach rationality
Sorry if it seems harsh but it really seemed to me that you were arguing with a strawman. A very shallow one, by the way, who made an awful lot of “beginner’s mistakes”.

Val Feb 16, 2016, 8:32 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Should we admit it when a person/group is “better” than another person/group?

In cases where modern science disagrees with what’s written in historical documents, there are usually strong reasons to prefer the conclusions of modern science.

Do you know of any modern scientific results which would prove that if members of a group stop supporting their group, than that group will not have reduced chances of survival?

It’s motte-and-bailey.

Don’t worry, I will not “go back to claiming” that “genetic traits in individuals develop for the main purpose of making the group fitter” after the discussion is over. :) I honestly didn’t held that belief. I only held (and still hold) the belief that the survival of the fittest can also apply in the case of competition between groups, which is not something which is disproved by the arguments against group selection.

On the other hand, this discussion made me think about the possibility of people confusing the above with the term “group selection”, and having read that “group selection is obsolete, not supported, and wrong” might conclude that it’s not true that groups adapt, change, and get stronger or get destroyed based on how fit (how well group members are supporting the group also making part of the fitness of the group) and how adaptive they are compared to other groups, although this is not what group selection is about.

Val

How to provide a sim­ple ex­am­ple to the re­quire­ment of falsifi­a­bil­ity in the sci­en­tific method to a novice au­di­ence?

How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?