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.
Classic confirmation bias. If you turn over the primary coloured card no matter what was on the other side it wouldn't help you. It could be an odd number, but that wouldn't falsify the position. Therefore turning it over will either support the proposition OR it will support it. Turning it over will reveal no new information.
The test shows how people 'instinctively' look for tests that seem to confirm the proposition, not ones that necessarily test the truth of the proposition. I think the point of it coming up here was to show that logic is not entirely a natural gift of humans.
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.
This came up originally because you said
Of COURSE we all think logically
If you were saying that "Of COURSE we all think thinkingly", or "Of COURSE we all think employing reason" you can understand why people might get confused. Especially since the discussion between robinrohan and Schraf was about formal logic (ie the specialized definition). See
Message 28 for confirmation that this was the subject of their discussion.
I don't see this as unwillingness to discuss anything, but a confusion brought about when you joined the discussion in
Message 86, using a different definition for logic than had been agreed on, without letting anybody know. Less than charitable people would be inclined to call this equivocation, but I'm fairly sure it was a simple accident.
™ Version 4.2
