Is the World Flat? The Flatlander's theory..

[cannabineer]

Confirmation bias involves an active pursuit for truth/accuracy.

It does not. Where the biasing idea comes from isn't important.

So, if we already thought that there was a killer outside, the noise could serve to confirm our idea. However, in my example the noise itself gave rise to the idea.

I see zero logical difference. The relevant train of reason exists equally in both cases: whether the idea was arrived at by cogitation or a more immediate perception/cognition couple ... they are both post hoc.

We were biased in our idea, but it wasn't confirmation bias. It was representative bias, which is a result of being primed by the horror movie. This is known as the availability heuristic, which is what I was looking for.

Why does what the "primer" was have any outcome on the reason tree or flow chart?

"The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision." The more easily the example comes to mind, the more confident of it we tend to be.



Ah, but if the 4 had an 'A' on the other side, it would falsify the premise. You've just experienced confirmation bias.

No. It would not. If A then 7 does not allow "so then: if 7 then A". I am confused by what looks like verbal sophistry, something I don't remember you willingly engaging in. I am seeing you apply a confirmation bias in your explanations.

I thus contend that the availability heuristic is an outcome-neutral antecedent of this example of confirmation bias.

 

[Heisenberg]

If you are looking for post hoc ergo propter hoc, I contend that this is a contained subset within confirmation bias.

Post hoc is the confirmation half of the term - the "confirmed" article is soon after but (almost?) always after the "biasing" experience.

Propter hoc is the "bias" portion wherein the fact of correlation is used to argue the maybe-spurious causation.

Philosophy isn't biology ... fallacies are not species. There is blur and overlap between the categories, which is belied by the apparent taxonomic crispness of the terms chosen for those categories of fallacy. (Which fallacy does that phenomenon invoke?)

It's important not to confuse logical fallacies with cognitive biases. One big difference is that logic errors can be completely avoided if we are vigilant and practiced, while cognitive biases can only be mitigated to various degrees. Still, it is certainly true that categories are always fuzzy when talking about human behavior and cognition.

A bias leads to an over/under confidence, or an over/under assessment, and behind most cognitive biases are processing heuristics. Mental shortcuts which work most of the time when we are dealing with simple factors, but get less reliable the more complicated the factors become. Some biases are cultural. A bias doesn't necessarily mean a fallacy, or a wrong answer. It just means we are more likely to consider the factors which favor the bias.

 

[cannabineer]

It's important not to confuse logical fallacies with cognitive biases.

I concur.

One big difference is that logic errors can be completely avoided if we are vigilant and practiced, while cognitive biases can only be mitigated to various degrees.

You are entirely correct about the machinery of logic. What I note you aren't saying is that all logic works on the supplied premises. The premises are not the logic. You engaged in an equivocation, a constructive lie, at this point. That is a type exemplar for intellectual dishonesty, and from a thorough thinker like you, I think it very likely that it was an aware choice. Most of us are not sufficiently-versed in logic, which is the kendo of Ph.D.s since time immemorial. And only some of us bring the horsepower to untangle the neatly-concealed logic trap you just set and swept foliage over. This meme illustrates the principle in an accessible manner.

Still, it is certainly true that categories are always fuzzy when talking about human behavior and cognition.

A bias leads to an over/under confidence, or an over/under assessment, and behind most cognitive biases are processing heuristics. Mental shortcuts which work most of the time when we are dealing with simple factors, but get less reliable the more complicated the factors become. Some biases are cultural. A bias doesn't necessarily mean a fallacy, or a wrong answer. It just means we are more likely to consider the factors which favor the bias.

You have been the Glacier. You have been the RIU Hammer of Logic. Thus it is illuminating to see you engage in this level of intellectual dishonesty. What is the driver? Don't wanna be shown up by a girl? Don't wanna see reason from someone who belled the Padraper cat?

What is your dog in this hunt?

 

[Heisenberg]

It does not. Where the biasing idea comes from isn't important. I see zero logical difference. The relevant train of reason exists equally in both cases: whether the idea was arrived at by cogitation or a more immediate perception/cognition couple ... they are both post hoc. Why does what the "primer" was have any outcome on the reason tree or flow chart?

Let's look at the definition of confirmation bias.

"Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities."

Confirmation bias can work in both passive and active situations, but it involves pre-existing ideas. The ideas may (or may not) originally come from other biases, but if there is nothing to confirm, then it's not confirmation bias. (that is to say, it's not what the term was invented to describe)

In my example, we did not suspect a killer outside until we heard the noise. And in the absence of the horror movie, we didn't suspect a killer even when hearing the noise.

No. It would not. If A then 7 does not allow "so then: if 7 then A". I am confused by what looks like verbal sophistry, something I don't remember you willingly engaging in. I am seeing you apply a confirmation bias in your explanations.

I thus contend that the availability heuristic is an outcome-neutral antecedent of this example of confirmation bias.

If we turn over the 4 and see an 'A', that would mean "If A then 4," which falsifies the premise of "If A then 7." However, there has been some dispute about whether or not this is due purely to confirmation bias. As you pointed out, some people tend think the statement works both ways. "If A then 7" they take to mean as "If 7 then A", in which case the error is due to a logical mistake rather than confirmation bias. Yet, this error isn't possible on the 4. So, failing to see the 4 as relevant is most likely due to the bias.

This is known as the Wason card problem (or Wason selection task). Also interesting, the bias has less influence if we change the factors from arbitrary symbols to actual conditions. (Such as: Let the cards show "beer," "cola," "16 years," and "22 years." On one side of each card is the name of a drink; on the other side is the age of the drinker. What card(s) must be turned over to determine if the following statement is false? If a person is drinking beer, then the person is over 19-years-old.)

http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson3.html

 

[curious2garden]

.......snip.......

If we turn over the 4 and see an 'A', that would mean "If A then 4,"

Wrong, that would be If 4 then A you are assuming symmetry and that is fallacious in the argument as you posted it.

 

[Heisenberg]

Wrong, that would be If 4 then A you are assuming symmetry and that is fallacious in the argument as you posted it.

I was speaking in shortcuts. The statement was "If a card has an "A" on one side it will have a "7" on the other side." This I subsequently condensed down to "If A then 7," which was perhaps misleading, but unintentional.

If we turn over the 4 and see an A, it would mean the statement is false.

 

[curious2garden]

I was speaking in shortcuts. The statement was "If a card has an "A" on one side it will have a "7" on the other side." This I subsequently condensed down to "If A then 7," which was perhaps misleading, but unintentional.

If we turn over the 4 and see an A, it would mean the statement is false.

It may have been unintentional but I can not read your mind and therefore I argued your posted argument. If you wish to advance a different argument, please do, I love this shit although not as good, at it, as I would like to be.

 

[Drowning-Man]

 

[Heisenberg]

I concur. You are entirely correct about the machinery of logic. What I note you aren't saying is that all logic works on the supplied premises. The premises are not the logic. You engaged in an equivocation, a constructive lie, at this point. That is a type exemplar for intellectual dishonesty, and from a thorough thinker like you, I think it very likely that it was an aware choice. Most of us are not sufficiently-versed in logic, which is the kendo of Ph.D.s since time immemorial. And only some of us bring the horsepower to untangle the neatly-concealed logic trap you just set and swept foliage over. This meme illustrates the principle in an accessible manner.

You can check my facebook post(s) of this meme, in which I say from the start that it isn't confirmation bias. While it may certainly be true that I am mistaken, it's not due to any sort of personal prejudice of those giving the answer.

https://www.facebook.com/hatepseudoscience/photos/a.167664610048076.39182.163735987107605/572227046258495/?type=3&theater

(I post as admin)

You have been the Glacier. You have been the RIU Hammer of Logic. Thus it is illuminating to see you engage in this level of intellectual dishonesty. What is the driver? Don't wanna be shown up by a girl? Don't wanna see reason from someone who belled the Padraper cat?

What is your dog in this hunt?

Now you are very close to cynicism. You are certainly free to disagree with me that I have captured the availability heuristic in my example, but assuming that I am being purposely dishonest isn't fair. As my above link demonstrates, I said the same thing back in October.

 

[Heisenberg]

It may have been unintentional but I can not read your mind and therefore I argued your posted argument. If you wish to advance a different argument, please do, I love this shit although not as good, at it, as I would like to be.

You wouldn't have to read my mind, just my original post. The statement is there in full.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/is-the-world-flat-the-flatlanders-theory.895220/page-188#post-12667233

 

[curious2garden]

You can check my facebook post(s) of this meme, in which I say from the start that it isn't confirmation bias. While it may certainly be true that I am mistaken, it's not due to any sort of personal prejudice of those giving the answer.

https://www.facebook.com/hatepseudoscience/photos/a.167664610048076.39182.163735987107605/572227046258495/?type=3&theater

(I post as admin)




Now you are very close to cynicism. You are certainly free to disagree with me that I have captured the availability heuristic in my example, but assuming that I am being purposely dishonest isn't fair. As my above link demonstrates, I said the same thing back in October.

LOL so you are arguing a schemata errata. You realize without more information your bias about the population is showing. So I could argue us both being wrong here.

 

[curious2garden]

You wouldn't have to read my mind, just my original post. The statement is there in full.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/is-the-world-flat-the-flatlanders-theory.895220/page-188#post-12667233

Close but no cigar... Confirmation bias refers to our tendency to pay attention to information which confirms our ideas rather than information that falsifies them.

Here is an example: First look at this picture. These are four cards. Each card will have a letter on one side, and a number on the other.

View attachment 3701910

Now, here is the idea we want to test:

>>If a card has an "A" on one side it will have a "7" on the other side.<<

Which card(s) must you turn over to determine whether the statement is false?

I'll put the remainder of my comment in white text. It will be invisible until you drag your mouse over it. Remember, this isn't an intelligence test, it's a demonstration of bias.

The cards that are relevant are 'A' and '4'. The 'D' and the '7' do not matter. Why do we ignore the 'D' and '7'? Well, look again at the statement we are testing. It is a conditional if-then statement. 'D' does not satisfy the 'if A' part of the statement, and so it is irrelevant to our test. Most people recognize this. Intuitively, the '7' seems relevant, but it can only serve to confirm our statement, and could never falsify it. If we turn over the '7' and find an 'A', it could just be coincidence. If we turn over the '7' and find a 'B', then 'B' doesn't satisfy the 'If A', and so, again, it is irrelevant. We cannot test the statement if we have not satisfied the "if". IOW, the original statement does not say that we wont find other letters corresponding to "7", and so finding a "B" with "7" on the other side would not falsify the premise. Turning over the 7 could only offer a confirmation of unknown relevance.

There is your post in it's entirety. The answer is still turn over A. What 7 has does not matter and the other numbers are not in the conditional argument you asked about. If A then 7 does not imply symmetry, ie, if 7 than A and nothing was stated about 4 and D so they are not important in proof of the If A then 7 conditional that is a simple T/F condition.

 

[SunnyJim]

Thread rating increased by 0.5 stars and counting.

 

[Heisenberg]

You realize without more information your bias about the population is showing.

Which bias are you referring to?


My point was that I am not saying the answer was wrong because you are (apparently) a girl or because of your previous comments. It's because I believe the availability heuristic is the more precise answer, and I think I've given objective reasons as to why.

"if there is nothing to confirm, then it's not confirmation bias. (that is to say, it's not what the term was invented to describe)

In my example, we did not suspect a killer outside until we heard the noise. And in the absence of the horror movie, we didn't suspect a killer even when hearing the noise."

 

[Rrog]

Thread rating increased by 0.5 stars and counting.

I think this thread is getting flatter

 

[Heisenberg]

There is your post in it's entirety. The answer is still turn over A. What 7 has does not matter and the other numbers are not in the conditional argument you asked about.

Yes, we turn over A and 4. If the 4 has an A on it, it falsifies the statement we want to test: "If a card has an "A" on one side it will have a "7" on the other side."

If a card has A on one side and a 4 on the other side, the statement is false.

 

[SunnyJim]

Yes, we turn over A and 4. If the 4 has an A on it, it falsifies the statement we want to test: "If a card has an "A" on one side it will have a "7" on the other side."

If a card has A on one side and a 4 on the other side, the statement is false.

Don't you exit the loop after turning the A card over? It will either have 7 on the other side, or it won't. No need to proceed through another condition, right?

 

[Heisenberg]

Don't you exit the loop after turning the A card over? It will either have 7 on the other side, or it won't. No need to proceed through another condition, right?

The question was "Which card(s) must you turn over to determine whether the statement is false?"

If we turn over the A and find anything other than a 7, the premise is falsified. However, you are asked which cards to turn over given the information presented, rather than turn one over and then decide on the next, and so on.

 

[zeddd]

Or beliefs.

or shoes

 

[Drowning-Man]

or shoes