Another superb post from Overcoming Bias.

[ Affective Death Spirals | overcomingbias.com ]

Dysrationalia is defined as the inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence. — Wikipedia

Links

[ Dysrationalia | wikipedia.org ]

Ok, I’m tired of being clueless about global warming. Tired.

I’ve been roughly 90% convinced of man-made global warming for years now, but I occasionally see information that convinces me there’s less to it than many would have us believe.

At one point last year I saw some data that made me say something like, “This data makes me question my belief in global warming.”

One reader showed up and scolded my ass. He was like, “If that was all that it took to convince you that global warming was false, then we can’t possibly respect your view in support of it either.”

That’s paraphrased, but the point is completely valid.

I don’t want to to rely on experts; I want to become one…even if just to a minor degree. I want to get to where I interpret the data itself and not rely on someone else’s interpretation.

I need to be able to build my OWN argument for man-made global warming rather than do the famous “appeal to authority” maneuver. Another goal of mine is to be able to do this with evolution as well.

These are two goals of mine: be able to explain, in my own words, why I believe (with evidence) that man-made global warming and evolution are real.

Do you agree? Have you done the same already? Do you have your own arguments for these topics or do you also appeal to an authority? Why or why not?

This should keep you busy for a few minutes.

Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric make up the trivium.:

Never let school interfere with your education. — Mark Twain

[ Update: The following story is not true. I knew when I posted it that it was the kind of story that gets disproved by Snopes constantly, but I went ahead for a very simple reason: the details of the story as well as the punch-line of who the story is about doesn't really matter. It's the lesson that's important. Still, I should have checked it first and posted it in another context. ]

Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected. I read the examination question: “SHOW HOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE HEIGHT OF A TALL BUILDING WITH THE AID OF A BAROMETER.” The student had answered, “Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building.”

The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on. In the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read: “Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5at^^2, calculate the height of the building.” At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded,and gave the student almost full credit.

While leaving my colleague’s office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem,so I asked him what they were. “Well,” said the student, “there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building,and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building.” “Fine,” I said, “and others?” “Yes,” said the student, “there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units.” “A very direct method.” “Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated.” “On this same tact, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession”.

“Finally,” he concluded, “there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best,” he said, “is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent’s door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: ‘Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.” At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think. The student was Neils Bohr.

Scott Adams just wrote an interesting piece about how he thinks economists have a unique way of seeing the world. First, he loosely defines an economist as someone who seeks explanations for why things happen. I like that, and it fits with my favorite economist’s view as well (Malcolm Gladwell).He then goes on to explain why economists are especially immune to cognitive dissonance:

I studied economics in college. One thing I’ve noticed is that other people who have studied economics tend to think a similar way. Some of the similarity is probably because it takes a certain kind of person to be interested in economics in the first place. But I’m convinced that the study of economics changes brains in a way I can identify after about five minutes of conversation. In particular, I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceThe primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations.

I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.

I like the way Scott thinks.:

My friend Steven has some interesting things to say about, “begging the question”. He then goes on to note that simply knowing how misused the term is serves as a shibboleth.

These parents are protesting their children not being able to walk at a commencement ceremony because they failed a necessary academic exam.

LET ARE KIDS WALK!

…reads one of the signs.

The parents are the reason their children are not walking. All the test did was reveal their failure.

I respect this guy very much for having the courage to stand against the masses of fools that have no-doubt flamed him for “selling out”.

One of the common arguments from Christians is that atheism is a belief analogous to their own belief in God. The implication, of course, is that both are therefore equally reasonable. Unfortunately, the debate can’t even start without resolving the meaning of atheism itself.

I don’t claim to be able to resolve this very complicated issue in a single post, but I believe we as a community should standardize on one meaning. What follows is my idea of what that definition should be, along with my reasons for thinking so.

Atheism

The lack of belief in gods as they are conceptualized in human civilization. This is not a proclamation of divine knowledge, i.e. that in all possible existences an atheist is positive that nothing like a God exists, anywhere. That would be stupid. The word is used (or should be) to describe a lack of belief in the Gods that are worshiped throughout our world. It’s a practical definition based on the reality of being surrounded by those who do believe. If that were not the case then there’d be no word for atheism just as there’s no word for those who don’t believe in the sun revolving around Jupiter.

History + Practicality

Let me try and back that up a little bit. Consider the fact that atheism came after theism. It’s a response to people believing in something. It didn’t come about by itself. It’s not something on its own; it’s the lack of something. That something is belief.

To view atheism as a belief in itself would require us to create many other such words to describe other “positive non-beliefs”. Dragons, for example. If we are to subscribe to the atheism as a belief concept then we’re going to need to explicitly label those who don’t believe in dragons. Oh, and the Easter bunny too.

Who would go around actively disbelieving in the infinite number of things that are preposterous? Here’s one of my favorite quotes on the matter:

If atheism is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I don’t know who came up with that one, but here’s mine:

When you knock over an empty glass you don’t spill non-water all over the table. And you don’t then proceed to clean up the non-water using paper towels designed to remove non-water, non-juice, and non-soda. You just do nothing because there wasn’t anything in the glass.

Beliefs are the same. You either have a belief in something or you don’t, and if you don’t then you simply don’t. It would be asinine to enumerate the trillions of things you don’t believe in and then consider those your beliefs. And that’s really what we’re being asked to accept with an “positive” belief model for atheism…that each ludicrous thing we come across must be actively disbelieved.

I just don’t think that’s the case, but I look forward to hearing from anyone who disagrees. I’d love to see another perspective on this.: