|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can those outside of science credibly speak about science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Maybe not if you are talking about something tricky and subtle. I don't think the card problem is "tricky and subtle". It's a fairly straightforward selection problem, and easily solved with the application of a few simple rule. Intuition, however, offers no help whatsoever.
But one doesn't have to be able to solve those puzzles to understand in a basic sense some scientific concept like, for example, natural selection. Even I can understand that. Fascinating, but irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Fascinating, but irrelevant. Look at the title of this thread, Crashfrog. My comment was not off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
True, many people can parrot information, just ask anyone who got an MCSE during the IT bubble
sure you can't expect someone to produce science in anyway on a forum, but i think you can use the fact that a person who knows what the information means and can form independent thoughts on a subject, like say throwing something at them thats new. if they can think research and produce something logical, that could define it a bit as for creationists, some of them can think outside what they are told, but i really can't think of any. It's not that they arn't talking science its more like they come from the stand point of the bible being a science book when it isn't, its hard to argue agenst someone who is basing views on a god
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
you can use the fact that a person who knows what the information means and can form independent thoughts on a subject, like say throwing something at them thats new.
That is true to some extent. But some people make up answers that sound scientific... usually based on simple correlation, and many people fall for it.
It's not that they arn't talking science its more like they come from the stand point of the bible being a science book when it isn't, its hard to argue agenst someone who is basing views on a god
That's a good point and I agree. But what of those that treat a science book like a bible, or perhaps names of methods like some sort of mantra or magic spell, with no real working knowledge of how it is used? If pinned down, would you say that in fact you would have specific criteria that separates a scientist from a nonscientist, and some which demark where someone though knowledgeable about some theories cannot speak regarding the nature of science, or pretend to the same activity of scientists? holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Incorrect. Try again.
quote: You are right in that just your results of doing the puzzle do not indicate anything about the entire human population. However, the fact is, this card task trips up almost everybody, even those people trained in critical thinking skills. Studies have been conducted many times which show that people find this card rask extremely difficult and most people get it wrong, even though it is a very basic, simple abstract logic problem.
quote: Well then, the conclusion you must come to is that you aren't a very good thinker, and that most people, even those trained in critical thinking, aren't very good thinkers. And anyway, it's absurd to describe logic as "thinking". I can think about what I want for breakfast, I can think about how much snow is on the ground, I can think about the mole on my wrist, and none of these are in any way "logical" thoughts. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-05-2006 07:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Grammar is not logical by any normal definition of the word. It is an arbitrary set of rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Have you done the Wason card task yet? This is the third time I've asked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Which cards should you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number, then its opposite face shows a primary colour? Can a card with a secondary color show a even number? This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 03-05-2006 08:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The DICTIONARY defines logic as thinking, for heaven's sake, defines it as REASONING. What's with you guys with your insistence on your specialized definition? Obviously you just aren't interested in discussion.
I have no other answer to the puzzle. If I want to prove whether an even number is always backed by a primary color I'm going to have to check the even number, the primary color and the nonprimary color.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The DICTIONARY defines logic as thinking, for heaven's sake, defines it as REASONING. My very close friend is a graduate student in computer science. His research work involves a system that employs logic to formally prove mathematical hypotheses. If we define "logic" as "thought", are we to conclude that my friend's logic software is thinking? That seems like a bit of a step. Your informal definition of "logic" (which, by the way, was not synonymous with "thinking" in any of your definitions) doesn't seem very useful or precise.
What's with you guys with your insistence on your specialized definition? What's with you and your insistence on terms that don't have a precise meaning? Sloppy definitions lead to sloppy thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Reasoning is the same as thinking, Crash.
What a bunch of BS you evos are pulling today, on this thread and on that pathetic excuse for a conversation about the flood I'm sorry I gave a second thought to. I think there's something basically fundamentally wrong with the scientific mentality. I've been coming to that conclusion for some time now. Something lacking in the reasoning department, and in the plain humanity department for sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hum.
I thought the exact same thought about "creationists" , specifically Young Earth Creationist. The amount of double think they have to do to try to deny verifiable evidence that is cross checked and rechecked is amazing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Have you done the Wason card task yet? What is the point of this test?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Can a card with a secondary color show a even number? Of course not. That would prove the proposition false. The proposition is even = primary. I'm probably wrong though as I've been told my solution to the puzzle was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Grammar is not logical by any normal definition of the word. It is an arbitrary set of rules. Sentence structure seems logical to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024