How Most People Evaluate Ideas

By -
Pulled from the comments at Cafe Hayek:

"This is awesome, because its what I've believed."

Judge ideas by whether they confirm what you think already!

Comments

  1. Daniel4:55 PM

    Host and commenter: two peas in a pod, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim12:39 AM

    Don Boudreaux is a joke, but his piece has the benefit of reminding me that his sort don't take the thesis of the broken-window fallacy nearly far enough. That is, they don't ever wonder what they might not be seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hume1:31 AM

    Gene, need more context. There are times when it is perfectly reasonable to have this response. Theory "confirmation" is what we look for after all, and if we are hoping that our linguistic practices correspond to nonlinguistic facts, then coming upon similar thoughts/ideas/evidence, etc. is not completely irrelevant. But I do understand what you are getting at.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ken B12:27 PM

    An example of Hume's point: I've always believed there had to be a way to use the keyboard to highlight text to copy, and it was awesome when a friend showed me how.

    OR: I am trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem in the margin of my book. It's truly marvelous. I can do it if Bloober's Conjecture is true, as I think but cannot prove. Then I hear Blubber has proved Bloober. Can't I have exactly that reaction, as Hume indicates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:57 PM

      This wasn't a very serious post, and I of course don't know the commenter personally. But for *most* people, this would be an example of confirmation bias.

      Delete
    2. Ken B12:58 PM

      This is awesome, because it's what I've believed about the Libertarianoshere for a while now!

      Delete
    3. Ken B12:59 PM

      I'm serious btw. Confirmation bias is a BOAST at FreeAdvice and a few other Pauline sites.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more