I often notice how people use arguments that fail to distinguish the hypotheses under discussion. For example, someone gives an argument that favors their hypothesis, but it also happens to favor the opponent’s hypothesis to about the same degree. Interpreting arguments in terms of the likelihood ratio they provide seems like an easy-to-use heuristic that fixes such errors.
I often notice how people use arguments that fail to distinguish the hypotheses under discussion. For example, someone gives an argument that favors their hypothesis, but it also happens to favor the opponent’s hypothesis to about the same degree.
Do you have any examples to share? (Not that I don’t believe you. People routinely use arguments that support the opposite position to the one they intend. Arguments that support both equally are bound to occur in between...)
Sorry, I have bad memory for details of this sort, only remember the abstract observation, which is recurrent enough that I have a cached phrase to identify and point out such situations (“This doesn’t distinguish the alternatives!”). Could make up some examples, but I don’t think it’s useful for clarification in this case, and it won’t provide further evidence for the existence of the issue.
Since the elements of the empty set satisfy arbitrary properties, all the examples you provided are technically evidence in favor for your observation. Also, against it.
If the woman who lost hadn’t been so comprehensively messed up in the head, you would’ve had an example in the OP. I wonder if there was a similar test more likely to succeed.
I have a theory that everyone does this, and it’s a way for our brains to save space somehow. Just keep track of the rate at which things tend to occur instead of recording and cataloging every experience.
I often notice how people use arguments that fail to distinguish the hypotheses under discussion. For example, someone gives an argument that favors their hypothesis, but it also happens to favor the opponent’s hypothesis to about the same degree. Interpreting arguments in terms of the likelihood ratio they provide seems like an easy-to-use heuristic that fixes such errors.
Do you have any examples to share? (Not that I don’t believe you. People routinely use arguments that support the opposite position to the one they intend. Arguments that support both equally are bound to occur in between...)
Sorry, I have bad memory for details of this sort, only remember the abstract observation, which is recurrent enough that I have a cached phrase to identify and point out such situations (“This doesn’t distinguish the alternatives!”). Could make up some examples, but I don’t think it’s useful for clarification in this case, and it won’t provide further evidence for the existence of the issue.
Since the elements of the empty set satisfy arbitrary properties, all the examples you provided are technically evidence in favor for your observation. Also, against it.
Heh <3
It’s hard to find this kind of humor anywhere else than LW and XKCD.
Actually, SMBC comics tends to be better than either.
We have some XKCD fans here, I see.
Well, I think it used to be way better than it is now.
If the woman who lost hadn’t been so comprehensively messed up in the head, you would’ve had an example in the OP. I wonder if there was a similar test more likely to succeed.
I have a theory that everyone does this, and it’s a way for our brains to save space somehow. Just keep track of the rate at which things tend to occur instead of recording and cataloging every experience.