Very nice! ETA: I’ll be specific: the look-n-feel of the website is generally professional and polished. The text is short, to the point, basically ideal in tone and content.
For example, a Perfect Reasoner wouldn’t be more confident that Linda is a feminist bank teller than that she is a bank teller, because in all cases where Linda is a feminist bank teller she is also a bank teller.
occurs without introducing Linda or discussing why one might expect her to be a feminist. We’re all steeped in the heuristics and biases literature here, but this could be rather baffling to anyone not already familiar with the Linda story/experiment.
Very nice! ETA: I’ll be specific: the look-n-feel of the website is generally professional and polished. The text is short, to the point, basically ideal in tone and content.
Minor nitpick: on the What is rationality? page, the line
occurs without introducing Linda or discussing why one might expect her to be a feminist. We’re all steeped in the heuristics and biases literature here, but this could be rather baffling to anyone not already familiar with the Linda story/experiment.
In short: possible inferential distance detected. Illogical! Illogical! Illogical!… sorry.
Fixed, kinda. If somebody has a clearer, very short way to illustrate what ‘violating the laws of probability theory’ looks like, I’m all ears.
Unrelated issue—It looks like there is an unclosed italics tag somewhere in the “Perfect Reasoner” part of “What is Rationality”
Fixed.