|
Has Our World Been Dumbed Down? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Heh, there seems nary an occasion where skepticism is more justified than when it comes to statements of belief positing vague hypotheticals that purport to describe a state of being we can't imagine. Our biology doesn't appear to support your belief. I wonder if anything does.
It seems to me there are (at least) two problems with this particular claim. First of all, it seems to regard 'accuracy' in a binary sense. If we limit the scope of 'knowledge' to statements which are either true or false, then that makes sense -- but then the claim is obviously false (we would have to do worse than random guessing.) On the other hand, where accuracy is a matter of degree it is entirely true that perfect accuracy will be rare; but perfect accuracy is rarely required. For exactly that reason, heuristics provide especially efficient ways of approaching such problems.
The second problem is more fundamental. If we 'know' x1... xn and, for each i 1-n, xi is probably not accurate since 'very little of what we know is accurate,' then we obviously have a problem. Either the knowledge that each other piece of knowledge is probably not accurate is false, or it is true, which necessarily makes it false, since then at least half of what we know is accurate.
But this little epistemological misadventure seems neither here nor there; the issue is not how accurate what we hold as facts are, but how to most productively estimate the probability that specific factual contentions are accurate. That is, an unspecified degree of inaccuracy is not only tolerated, it is assumed. |
I think I understood your point there, but not entirely. It's seems like a clash, especially going by your inductive example, of induction v.s. deduction if I'm correct? BTW, sometimes I think you're the only person in here who understand formal logic :). |
|
|
| spdandpwr |
| I am still in the process or reading all the posts, so more relevant posts will follow, however, I wanted to make a quick comment about wikipedia: I think the people who use wikipedia as a legitmate source for proving a point or arguing in a debate are not helping in making anyone smarter -- wikipedia should be used as a starting point, nothing more. |
|
|
| spdandpwr |
| I also wanted to mention one last thing: has anyone noticed the complete jump in poor writing and mechanics? Most people don't know what a semicolon or a hyphen are even used for -- although, it should be said, that I too make mistakes. I don't think you should pass through college if you can't write; hell, you shouldn't pass through high school if you cannot manipulate the English language well enough to articulate a point. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by spdandpwr
I also wanted to mention one last thing: has anyone noticed the complete jump in poor writing and mechanics? Most people don't know what a semicolon or a hyphen are even used for -- although, it should be said, that I too make mistakes. I don't think you should pass through college if you can't write; hell, you shouldn't pass through high school if you cannot manipulate the English language well enough to articulate a point. |
Semicolons add so much style to writing. It's a shame that the proper usage of a semicolon is unkown to the vast majority of people. Hyphens, on the other hand, can be tricky because the usage is largely a matter of style, and the modern practice is to omit hyphens.
I would also add that many people don't use commas appropriately. I admit, however, that I have my moments when I confuse the proper usage of commas. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Dizzy
i'm so disgusted with the state of our country it makes me sick. our country has been going down the wrong route for quite awhile now and we'll eventually wake up and realize that we are so below the curve in today's globalization. i do my best to constantly educate myself and always keep an open mind, i'm 27 years old and have been out of school for quite some time but still find that you can remain in a constant state of learning your entire life and never reach a comfortable level of knowledge, but one should still strive for the next level of enlightenment.
our country NEEDS psychedelics and a wake up call. |
Or one could meditatively induce a DMT trip, although that isn't the purpose of meditation and it takes hard work to be able to do such a thing. So, yeah, keeping the status quo in mind, acid will do :p. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Acid made me into a poet. But only during the trip. I could speak in alliteration. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Acid made me into a poet. But only during the trip. I could speak in alliteration. |
LOL, I bet Dr. Sues did Acid :p. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, I bet Dr. Sues did Acid :p. |
Wouldn't doubt it..:happy2: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I think I understood your point there, but not entirely. It's seems like a clash, especially going by your inductive example, of induction v.s. deduction if I'm correct? BTW, sometimes I think you're the only person in here who understand formal logic :). |
Yes, that's pretty much it. A sound deductive argument is always the best source of truth, where possible. But, in economic terms, there are information costs associated with obtaining the necessary premises from which to reason deductively. This makes it less than ideal for most situations that organisms, including humans, typically encounter.
Take this deductive argument:
Red is a dog.
All dogs have four legs.
Therefore, Red has four legs.
The accuracy of the conclusion, given the truth of the premises, is 100%. But in order to apply that reasoning in a practical sense, we would somehow have to first establish that all dogs have four legs. That's going to be a pretty big obstacle. What are we going to do, gather up all the dogs in the world and count their legs?
Heuristics, like the categorization heuristic, are more efficient because they are inductive. Suppose you are a wild animal and you need to find a source of water. On the one side you see some rather barren, sandy looking terrain. Because you are evolved to employ categorization heuristics and you have seen terrain like this before, you are apt to categorize it as a "desert." There are abundant trees on the other side. You are apt to categorize that terrain as a "forest."
Now, it may be that there is an oasis just over that dune. It may also be that there is no readily accessible water in the forest. But I doubt anyone thinks that the animal which categorizes the terrain and acts upon generalizations relating to those categories is not more likely to survive than the organism which insists on giving each unexplored area an equal chance at proving its fruitfulness.
It is not so different when it comes to homo sapiens seeking a more cerebral sort of edification, although the stakes are likely lower (I can certainly imagine scenarios where they would be higher.) Categories of potential sources of information do help us make judgments about where we are likely to find accurate information, and what sources are likely to be intellectually barren. That is, it helps us decide where we will likely get a greater return for the investment of our time. Over many iterations of this problem, the person who chooses more efficiently is likely to possess greater knowledge, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
All that said -- and in this regard, Shibby's point is well taken -- it is best that we employ this sort of reasoning consciously, and only to the extent efficient under the circumstances, taking into consideration the extent of our knowledge of each source beyond mere categorization and also the probable cost of an error.
Human beings employ heuristics, for example, that help them gauge how physical objects are likely to move through space. In most situations, they are very useful, since most of us are not capable of performing the calculations that would be necessary to achieve a higher degree of accuracy, at least in any timely manner. But while these limitations may be entirely tolerable in aiming my garden hose, we may not find it efficient to rely on them aiming a rocket. |
|
|
| spdandpwr |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
here's my view: an academic education serves two main efficiency purposes. First, formal education is beneficial because the information has already been compiled for people to study, and that information otherwise may have been impossible for someone to discover alone. sure, a person could learn anything without going to school, but it likely to be much less efficient because not only do you have to study, but you also have to discover the information (which is handed to you in college). Second, it is a non-arbitrary way for others to evaluate someone's skills. |
I agree with your first statement; but, I will take a contrasting point of view on your second observation. I wouldn't say education is a non-arbitrary way to evaluate someone's skills as there are many variables that go into an education: some schools have different curriculums, some professors skip certain lessons or material that they feel may be unimportant, and extra credit can be given to students who ask (boosting an otherwise lackluster performance). Henceforth, we cannot prove an education as a non-arbitrary means of assessing education (especially considering the aforementioned variables), but we can establish that education does provide the necessary, at least in my mind, framework from which to learn.
And on a side note, this debate reminds me of the statement "90% of what you learn in college is outside of college." |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by spdandpwr
I agree with your first statement; but, I will take a contrasting point of view on your second observation. I wouldn't say education is a non-arbitrary way to evaluate someone's skills as there are many variables that go into an education: some schools have different curriculums, some professors skip certain lessons or material that they feel may be unimportant, and extra credit can be given to students who ask (boosting an otherwise lackluster performance). Henceforth, we cannot prove an education as a non-arbitrary means of assessing education (especially considering the aforementioned variables), but we can establish that education does provide the necessary, at least in my mind, framework from which to learn.
And on a side note, this debate reminds me of the statement "90% of what you learn in college is outside of college." |
My second statement was focused more on the broad scale. For example, when an employer is interviewing 30 people for a position it would be quite difficult to give an exam to assess the basic knowledge of each applicant. The university credentials indicates that a person has a basic knowledge of various areas, and the major indicates a more thorough understanding of that specific area. |
|
|
| spdandpwr |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
My second statement was focused more on the broad scale. For example, when an employer is interviewing 30 people for a position it would be quite difficult to give an exam to assess the basic knowledge of each applicant. The university credentials indicates that a person has a basic knowledge of various areas, and the major indicates a more thorough understanding of that specific area. |
yea, the university credentials, at the least, show the aptitude to perform duties...sort of what a jd does to lawyers (you don't really go to law school to become a specific type of lawyer, but rather go to law school to demonstrate your ability to manipulate law).
And this can serve a rebuttal to those denigrating formal education. While formal education is flawed, it is, for the most part, a solid means of assessing aptitude. Yea, there are exceptions to the statement, but generally, if you can't do well in school, you usually aren't ready and able to do something ground breaking. |
|
|
|
|
