Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

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. Fascinating, but irrelevant.

Look at the title of this thread, Crashfrog. My comment was not off-topic.

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

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. 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)

quote:

---

all but 3

---

Incorrect.Try again.

quote:

---

But right or wrong, this wouldn't prove whether logic is natural or not, as I said that we are not always good at it, and some of us are better at it than others.

---

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:

---

I meant what robinrohan just said in his post, logic is simply the process of thinking. Formal logic is the refinement of this process.

---

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

quote:

---

If you are saying that grammar is fundamentally logical, I agree.

---

Grammar is not logical by any normal definition of the word.It is an arbitrary set of rules.

quote:

---

You don't have to have training in formal logic. All you have to do is become aware of what you've been accepting unconsciously--like my friend the "great artist."

---

Have you done the Wason card task yet?This is the third time I've asked.

Can a card with a secondary color show a even number?This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 03-05-2006 08:37 AM

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.

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 and your insistence on terms that don't have a precise meaning? Sloppy definitions lead to sloppy thinking.

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.

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.

What is the point of this test?

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.

Sentence structure seems logical to me.