Perhaps I should grant that Darf and HP do have maybe a minor decent point in that I sometimes sound like I'm brimming with confidence when in fact the evidence at my disposal does not quite rise to the level I need. I should probably try to couch my rhetoric with qualifications. In my defense I think sometimes that goes without saying. I present an argument forcefully not because it actually reflects the confidence level I have but because it's an effort to goad a response. On the other hand sometimes the confidence I'm expressing is real. I genuinely am confident and I shouldn't be.
Not that Darf and HP get anything right of importance right. :) Here's Richard Feynman on the topic.
2 comments:
Given what I've learned about cognitive biases and limits of knowledge in general, I usually take what I think I know and discount it by 60%. 90% if it is something in the social sciences.
Exactly Darf. I often get the impression that even that which is believed by 90% of the social science profession still does not even rise above the noise level of real knowledge.
Its like were trying to find some sense of continuity in a multi-variable, always changing environment.
Post a Comment