Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 347 posts

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#151

Post by vacri »

thefalcon wrote: post #108
dwringer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for that result, but [isn't the increase in probability of winning the Monty Hall problem by switching doors an increase from 1/3 to 1/2]? [ED: no] The summary claims it is "doubled". I'm also interested in some kind of control for the concept that pigeons simply get bored inevitably with the first choice and tend to switch in spite of whether it gives them any advantage. I don't see evidence that this experi…

There are a lot of givens and provisos to make the Monty Hall problem work[1], but in the end if you stick with your door you have a 1/3 chance of winning and if you switch you have a 2/3 chance of winning. [1]Monty must always open a non-winning door based on his insider knowledge and always give you the chance to switch, and of course the prize has to always remain behind its original door.

The way this was made clear to me was to use 100 doors instead of 3. Hall opens 98 doors when you make your initial guess. It's much clearer to see how information is added to the system with this many doors.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#152

Post by onuralp »

Piggybacking on the discussion about reasoning: I found the recently proposed 'argumentative theory of reasoning' quiet insightful and provocative with significant implications for belief formation (as well as scientific methodology).

Here is an excerpt from the researchers who proposed the theory:

> the argumentative theory of reasoning—proposes that instead of having a purely individual function, reasoning has a social and, more specifically, argumentative function. The function of reasoning would be to find and evaluate reasons in dialogic contexts—more plainly, to argue with others.

Citation: https://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/theargumentativeth...

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#153

Post by j2kun »

coldtea wrote: post #76
jimbokun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer review is better than no review. There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true, than a random statement with no attribution. So yes, a statement can satisfy any of the things you mention, and still not be true.…

> All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Yeah, in the sense that all you are saying is its possible to have degrees of trust on difference sources of "facts". That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people. > Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer rev…

> it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people

In my experience, people tend to use this phrase as a bludgeon to exclude ideas they don't like. It's a way to stop a discussion, not help promote understanding and find real facts.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#154

Post by pcmaffey »

gmarx wrote: post #103
coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

If I remember my science training properly "fact" is a synonym for "observation". One interprets facts in order to develop a model or "theory". So facts published in peer reviewed articles probably represent objective reality (if you believe in objective reality and trust the author to record observations accurately); the conclusion in peer reviewed articles (theories for example or statistical associations) should n…

And then Heisenberg happened.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#155

Post by Retric »

meheleventyone wrote: post #66
coding123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting. Coffee is complex and interacts in ways that can be described as good and bad. The press reporting blows by the wind of the press release that day. Hence the Daily Mail and others reporting lots of common things both causing and protecting us against cancer.

Reality not just science is complicated.

One 'fact' I remember was men are more likely to physically harm their spouse, women are more likely to kill their spouse. [used as an example, may not be correct] If it's true that means domestic violence is biased in both directions. In other works Men are not more, less, or just as violent as women. Instead violence is a insufficiently complex model for the behaviors being discussed.

The hardest part of science is our desire to simplify past the point of accuracy. Consider, cities albino alter their local climate in more ways than just temperature. However, temperature is easy to model and complex interactions with various layers of the atmosphere and wind patterns is so guess what's ignored about this interaction. You don't teach middle school students about chimera when they study DNA, but it's a very real thing that actually happens.

This seems to extend in every direction. Do we want trade policy for today, next year, our children's future?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#156

Post by pcmaffey »

philipov wrote: post #79
balabaster wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that my definition of the term "fact" is wrong... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. So... are you saying that a fact isn't something that's known to be true? Because my understanding of the word "fact" is that it means something indisputable, an underlying truth upon which you can base other truths and know them…

Yes, correct. Humans are not capable of having access to indisputable truth. However, indisputable truth is not necessary for forming useful foundations for other knowledge. Humans exist in the space of the "probably good enough." What becomes a fact for you depends on how tolerant you are for uncertainty. You're probably going to die. That's almost 100%. A solipsistic universe is likewise very unlikely. Those are pr…

Yes, all facts should contain a probability property.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#157

Post by pzone »

crpatino wrote: post #88
sgt101 wrote: post #16

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual having a vaccine are low, but non zero. The risk of not having the vaccine may well be lower. The problem is that by not being clear that having a vaccination is an altruistic act with marginal risk but a massive social good the way is left open for claims of du…

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies. Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.

This seems to be exactly the same as what the anti-PC and general Trump voting crowd believe as well. They HATE oversimplifications that deny their viewpoint. For example "Affirmative action is 100% fair." That's not an objective truth, but the left tries to sell it that way.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#159

Post by skybrian »

It's important to remember that most scientific disputes can't be resolved by two uninformed people talking on the Internet. If you can get people to share links to well-written scientific articles, you're doing well, but these disputes can only really be answered by actual scientific discussion between actual experts who take the time to dig into methodology (etc), and maybe not even then; the replication crisis is a thing.

With enough study, maybe you can become an expert. Mostly we don't. Reading a few articles and playing "instant expert" is just a bad habit.

Remembering your ignorance is good; try not to forget that you knew nothing about the hot topic of the day before it became news and you suddenly became interested. Unless you have personal experience to share, we're really just sharing links here.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#160

Post by morbidhawk »

If facts don't actually persuade us, then why is test-taking on fact-based trivia so prevalent in schools? (seriously can I get all that wasted time and energy back somehow)

I'd argue that there is only 1 useful fact that persuades us to open our minds and learn and that's realizing that we know nothing. This is the 1 truth Socrates held onto and helped him to learn so much. He'd never assume he knew something well enough and instead assumed there was always more to learn and used socratic method questioning to show contradictions in his own knowledge and world view. I think that is really the only way to persuade someone, by asking really good questions that cause them to question their own world views and biases.

Post reply on HN