[b] In a peaceful world where most falsehood was due to random mistakes, there would be little to be gained by studying processes that systematically create erroneous maps.
Systematic error is conflated with conflict (in b), following sections (in the vicinity of a) which claim error is not conscious. Even if I accept b,
why should c follow? Why not tune out what can’t be verified, or isn’t worth verifying? (I say this as someone who intends to vote on this post only after running the code.)
why should c follow? Why not tune out what can’t be verified, or isn’t worth verifying? (I say this as someone who intends to vote on this post only after running the code.)
Because of things like selective reporting, the vast majority of information reported to us tends to be misleading, but not without some level of useful information (and sometimes a lot of useful information). Instead of tuning out information or spending exhaustive amounts of time attempting to verify it, a faster solution is often to figure out ways to adjust the (inaccurate) information for deception to get only the useful information and a better understanding of uncertainty within it.
Of course, if there is a 100% un-deceptive source for a given piece of information, there’s not much value in trying to use deceptive sources for that same piece of information (unless the former source is much more expensive than the latter).
The same for 4 significant digits.
Systematic error is conflated with conflict (in b), following sections (in the vicinity of a) which claim error is not conscious. Even if I accept b,
why should c follow? Why not tune out what can’t be verified, or isn’t worth verifying? (I say this as someone who intends to vote on this post only after running the code.)
Because of things like selective reporting, the vast majority of information reported to us tends to be misleading, but not without some level of useful information (and sometimes a lot of useful information). Instead of tuning out information or spending exhaustive amounts of time attempting to verify it, a faster solution is often to figure out ways to adjust the (inaccurate) information for deception to get only the useful information and a better understanding of uncertainty within it.
Of course, if there is a 100% un-deceptive source for a given piece of information, there’s not much value in trying to use deceptive sources for that same piece of information (unless the former source is much more expensive than the latter).