Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
scientificamerican.com
Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#2This seems to me to be as much "you have a hard time replacing what you know works in some (indeed many) cases with something that might be harder to apply in simple cases but is always correct" as it is "you have a hard time learning correct things."
That is, the ideas (that this piece mentioned) that people had a hard time leaving behind seemed to be those that work as decent guidelines, even if they are not accurate. Speed of processing is a value in our minds as much as it is in a computer. If you have a rule of thumb that works rather well, why abandon it?
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#3Sounds like a System 1 vs. System 2 conflict: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/... And not even a particularly interesting or surprising one, really.
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#4Sounds like a System 1 vs. System 2 conflict: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/... And not even a particularly interesting or surprising one, really.
Can you go into more detail? Specifically, how does this differ from the second page if the article, where it discusses (somewhat refutes) learned concepts that override naive concepts taking longer just because the pathways aren't as strongly connected?
I have no idea what System 1 vs System 2 thinking is, much less how it applies in this case.
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#5[deleted]
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#6"sound scientific principles that have been repeatedly tested and verified"
I'm worried about how many studies aren't subjected to repeated testing. Of course, it varies by field, but I'd like to get an idea of how many journal-published articles show results that can be reproduced independently.
Or am I misinformed?
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#7Sounds like a System 1 vs. System 2 conflict: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/... And not even a particularly interesting or surprising one, really.
Can you go into more detail? Specifically, how does this differ from the second page if the article, where it discusses (somewhat refutes) learned concepts that override naive concepts taking longer just because the pathways aren't as strongly connected? I have no idea what System 1 vs System 2 thinking is, much less how it applies in this case.
[deleted]
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#8Surely the "inconsistent" questions are the ones that initially seem to be possibly tricky or subtle questions. This is not the same as contradicting the intuitive answer. For example, if you ask whether two masses fall at the same speed in air, that would probably trigger a careful response in the same way that asking whether two objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum would, even though in the first case the correct answer ultimately matches natural intuition. That's my guess as to what's going on.
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#9Sounds like a System 1 vs. System 2 conflict: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/... And not even a particularly interesting or surprising one, really.
Can you go into more detail? Specifically, how does this differ from the second page if the article, where it discusses (somewhat refutes) learned concepts that override naive concepts taking longer just because the pathways aren't as strongly connected? I have no idea what System 1 vs System 2 thinking is, much less how it applies in this case.
Re: Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
#10the authors found that participants who had best mastered scientific concepts (determined by their overall accuracy) were especially slow to verify inconsistent statements
I would expect that it's the other way around ie the people who take longer time to think stuff through will have a higher accuracy. Which doesn't make their results all that surprising