My question is, how do you know that what's left definitely isn't reasoning? — Srap Tasmaner
reasoning (by which I mean a set of thinking methods that are well-known to preserve or approach more true conclusions) is not redundant as an explanation of the differences between various people's conclusions. It's a necessary but not sufficient factor in the explanation. — Isaac
I haven't read Noise yet. Have you looked at it? — Srap Tasmaner
Here's one example I recall: umpires are, as a group, somewhat reluctant to make game-deciding strike calls. That is, when a called strike would decide the outcome of the game, then and there, umpires are slightly more likely to call a ball a pitch they would usually call a strike. — Srap Tasmaner
I always get the impression that you think there is no such process being interfered with, that all there is is my myth versus your image, that you can only reduce the influence of one myth by replacing it with another, that it's all noise and bias all the time and nothing else. Say it ain't so, Joe. — Srap Tasmaner
It's an assumption about the audience, that's all. — Isaac
Proper reasoning is just the qualifying round, not the playoff. Sure, we can still disqualify contenders at the first round, but almost every serious contender has cleared that stage with ease. The role in a social narrative is the playing field on which the finals take place. — Isaac
I used to be a tournament chess player. — Srap Tasmaner
It is a fact that grandmasters make blunders. — Srap Tasmaner
Neither player even got to the point of dismissing the possibility of blund, sort of turns the notion on it's head does it not?er on reputation grounds (and there are stories of that); they just didn't see the position for what it was. Looking over the shoulders of amateurs, they would have though. — Srap Tasmaner
the analogy was tailored. — Isaac
In chess one doesn't have the benefit of peer review, or even a chat with a couple of colleagues — Isaac
expert opinion in the public domain is largely (if not wholly) past the stage of blunders in basic reasoning — Isaac
Here the social narrative (grandmasters playing tournament chess) ruled out a storyline which might have worked better. — Isaac
I'm going to risk your polite wrath by suggesting that the 'fact of the matter' (whether the wrong move was a 'blunder') is itself a socially constructed post hoc story. — Isaac
In chess one doesn't have the benefit of peer review, or even a chat with a couple of colleagues — Isaac
And all that's basically wrong, but I don't know that it matters. — Srap Tasmaner
expert opinion in the public domain is largely (if not wholly) past the stage of blunders in basic reasoning — Isaac
Probably?! But the blunder idea is not the main point anyway. — Srap Tasmaner
I'm saying they were so caught up in this negotiation and deciding what sort of game each felt like playing under the circumstances that they essentially forgot these are also actual moves on the board. — Srap Tasmaner
Narratives can help...or they can get in the way of analysis — Srap Tasmaner
when one makes a move in chess one cannot check with colleagues that it makes sense first, as one can do with an expert opinion. Is that wrong? Or am I missing the point? — Isaac
Two roles to play in two different storylines, am I playing the master negotiator, or the dispassionate calculator of moves... — Isaac
I don't see any evidence of analysis existing outside of a narrative — Isaac
the issue is poor choice of narrative getting in the way. — Isaac
Alternatively, as Yohan pointed out earlier, this undermines the idea of majority consensus. If it's just linearly related to intellect then the majority are almost certainly wrong, as they don't represent the cohort with most intelligence. The group that are right will will one of the minorities but we won't be able to judge which (are they the most intelligent, or the most stupid?) because we won't understand the arguments. — Isaac
Here's one example I recall: umpires are, as a group, somewhat reluctant to make game-deciding strike calls. That is, when a called strike would decide the outcome of the game, then and there, umpires are slightly more likely to call a ball a pitch they would usually call a strike. — Srap Tasmaner
I'd say the computer would confirm the majority opinion, more so with higher consensus. — Xtrix
I'd say the computer would confirm the majority opinion, more so with higher consensus.
— Xtrix
Then you'd be wrong. — Srap Tasmaner
I haven't looked at Fangraphs in a while, but the "average called strike zone" tends to move around from year to year. — Srap Tasmaner
a study has never been done about this — Xtrix
a study has never been done about this
— Xtrix
Yeah it has. I mentioned it. It's why we're talking about this. — Srap Tasmaner
There's a fair amount of noise in any umpire's calls, and in umpires taken as a group. — Srap Tasmaner
It's a simple point really: a chess player is a cumulative person. When you play an opening, your moves have been vetted by generations before you -- and sometimes they turn out to be wrong. Top players preparing for big matches have a team that helps them come up with new ideas in the opening. Computers have changed a lot of this. (There were still adjournments when I was a young player; you and a buddy would analyze the position and then at the appointed hour, you'd play relying on that analysis. Chess has a lot of non-obvious communal elements.) — Srap Tasmaner
Two roles to play in two different storylines, am I playing the master negotiator, or the dispassionate calculator of moves... — Isaac
And the second isn't really optional, not even for Tal. — Srap Tasmaner
Still I think there are clear reasons to consider some narratives as unwanted intruders. Which of these two candidates is the better engineer? Your personal race narrative can help you make a better racist decision, but not a better engineering decision. — Srap Tasmaner
If we're forced to say stuff is purpose-relative, that'll work, but it feels lame to say that all the time, hand-wavy pragmatism. — Srap Tasmaner
This is a ridiculous argument. — Xtrix
A couple of possibilities we'd want to reject off the bat... — Isaac
No. Just to show how non-functioning the democracy of the Weimar Republic was then and how many campaigns were about smashing the rulers or the other parties. The Brownshirts weren't the only street gang around then.You're both just trying to excuse naivety with deadly consequences at this point. — Tzeentch
So experts fall down on which theories they prefer, find more intuitively compelling, find less risky to throw their weight behind... etc. — Isaac
I remember an argument I got into with a guy on Fangraphs (a sabermetrics site): guy had a model that predicted the strikeout rate of pitchers and was highlighting pitchers he believed had been lucky so far that season (and were thus overvalued by fantasy players). I suggested that another explanation might be something that was not in his model and that was hard to measure, like sequencing or deception. His response floored me: it couldn't be that because if there were such an effect it would show up in the data. That's the wrong answer. Something is in the data; the question is whether it's stochastic and how we could know. (Hence the obsession on Fangraphs with sample size.)
I'm getting to the point. There are statistical methods you know better than I that can give you an idea how much of the variation in opinion can be explained by your social roles and stories model. I assume that value is something less than 1. My question is, how do you know that what's left definitely isn't reasoning? — Srap Tasmaner
Meaning that if a baseball player properly hits 30% of the balls properly aimed at him, he is deemed to have an excellent result. In other words, properly hitting the ball in baseball is a hard task, a difficult task. So hard that even good hitters don't properly hit around 70% of the balls.In baseball, batting average (BA) is determined by dividing a player's hits by his total at-bats. It is usually rounded to three decimal places and read without the decimal: A player with a batting average of .300 is "batting three-hundred".
/.../
In modern times, a season batting average of .300 or higher is considered to be excellent, and an average higher than .400 a nearly unachievable goal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average_(baseball)
OK, so what's the alternative? Given our group of experts, the variance among whom we know is caused by a wide variety of factors, reasoning error being very low on that list (if present at all).
How do we then talk about that variance in a non-lame way? — Isaac
By creating said truth.If the variance is not caused by blunders (because we're past that) then how is cohort agreement predicting truth? — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.