patrick.net

Dan8267 says

The answer would have been obvious to me even at the age of seven.

You are a legend in your own mind. Do you get tennis elbow from patting yourself on the back?

bob2356 says

Dan8267 says

The answer would have been obvious to me even at the age of seven.

You are a legend in your own mind.

If you think this is a difficult problem even for a seven-year-old -- the age of reasoning -- then you are precisely the type of person I find hard to respect as an adult. My point was that it's an extremely low bar to meet, yet you come back and say it's way too high.

I've never seen a deck with these cards or rules.
My pretzel logic is focused on fiat currency,overpopulation,environmental degradation,water shortage,global warming & the newest cellphone. Woah! Almost forgot about voting for a political theology.
I'm expecting to receive my "Retard Certification" soon.

Dan8267 says

If a person cannot handle abstract concepts, he cannot understand the complex world we live in and therefore cannot make good voting decisions, and that materially affects the quality of our government and our ability to deal with the great problems of our time.

There are several flaws with this thinking:
- first the way the brain form high level concepts is NOT logical. You may be able to think logically about something like a "marriage" but there is nothing purely logical about this concept: it's a cultural matter mostly, that depends on your education. In fact, many of the concepts that come up in political discussions are matters of tradition, cultural identity, and ideology and cannot be brought back to purely objective grounds. Even when directly based on objective reality, the effect of a policy on the future is simply too unpredictable to determine. For example should Bush have invaded Iraq? Now we could maybe say no. But in 2003, the information available to determine this would be simply too fuzzy to take a decision based strictly on logic. You work with computers and you deal with facts like "this byte is yellow". Logic applies. Unfortunately most of the world in which we operate as humans is not like this.
- second, it's well known that the brain has a lot of biases. Yes even yours. Study propaganda and you will realize we can all be influenced. For example studies show advertisement has a massive impact on people, whereas most people will tell you it has no effect on them. So a policy debate between humans will always be based on perceptions, appearances, feelings, and this is what politics is. You may hate the fact that it's not objective, but it will never be. Even if you exclude people unable of thinking "logically". Furthermore, just because it's not objective doesn't mean it doesn't work. The larger realities ARE reflected in the political debate. Over time, it does work. Maybe it's a clunky way to do things, but there aren't a lot of alternative.

Given this reality, I would say it's illogical to try to argue that policy decisions should be made "logically".

Heraclitusstudent says

Given this reality, I would say it's illogical to try to argue that policy decisions should be made "logically".

Wow. I'm glad you are not president.

Incomplete information is not any justification for making logically incorrect policy decisions. In fact, the incompleteness of information makes logical reasoning even more important. The same goes for biases.

As for feelings, we should not ignore man-made climate change because it "does not feel like a threat", nor should we start a war with a country because "we feel they are a threat" when evidence shows they are not. Nor does the existence of cultural or subjective value judgements in any way suggest that we should strive to be erroneous in our reasoning. Logic does not impose any value judgement, but it is absolutely necessary to make the best policy given your value judgements.

I think you are really objecting to what you feel threatens your cultural preference. So let me put this in terms that may be more acceptable to your culture. Logic is simply another word for WISDOM. Are you going to argue that policy decisions should not be made wisely or that we shouldn't strive to maximize our wisdom when acting? Go back and read my post replacing "logic" with "wisdom" and tell me if you still object to it. Switching those words will not change the meaning of the post. Unfortunately, like most people, you care far more about how something is said than what is said, and that is foolishness, the very opposite of wisdom. And this foolishness is exactly what the above video is demonstrating.

Wisdom is realizing that the two problems in the original post are identical. Wisdom is being able to solve problem 1 as easily as you solve problem 2.

Dan8267 says

If you think this is a difficult problem even for a seven-year-old -- the age of reasoning -- then you are precisely the type of person I find hard to respect as an adult. My point was that it's an extremely low bar to meet, yet you come back and say it's way too high.

Reading comprehension problems again? I didn't say anything about the difficulty of the problem, only about your high opinion of yourself. I know I don't have the back round to evaluate problem solving abilities at a 7 year old level. You only think that you do, you actually have no way of knowing what your abilities were as a 7 year old. Even if you were half as bright as you think you are (which is questionable) there is no need to be an bombastic overbearing I'm superior to everyone fool all the time.

BTW I had no trouble with the problem at all.

bob2356 says

I didn't say anything about the difficulty of the problem, only about your high opinion of yourself

1. I don't have a high opinion of myself. I have a low opinion of you.
2. If you think being able to solve problem 1 is something to brag about, you are implying that you had difficulty with it. If that was not your intent, it's still on you for your bad writing skills.
3. You evidently care much more about my opinion than I care about yours.
4. You are the one who sounds bombastic. There's nothing ego-centric about the original post. To show disdain that only 4% of the population can solve a simple problem is not bragging that one can. See point #1.

bob2356 says

BTW I had no trouble with the problem at all.

Given your post, I sincerely doubt that. I find it much more likely that you are in the 96% category. If you weren't, you would feel no need to attack the messenger.

Here's the problem ... the affirming the consequent here applies, because it's the fundamental rule of the card, itself.

So A to B and thus B to A, does matter, as it's a card in the set which follows the rule, intrinsic to the card. With that in mind both A/7 and 2/7 have to work, otherwise, that number 2 card is not a part of same set of cards. It's from an alternate set so we're not pooling the stripes of tigers and zebras here.

Huh?

Are you saying that in problem 2, you have to turn over the card [2] in order to see if the rule is being followed? That would not be true. Whether or not the [2] card has a vowel on the other side is irrelevant because the rule is satisfied either way.

Dan8267 says

Are you saying that in problem 2, you have to turn over the card [2] in order to see if the rule is being followed? That would not be true. Whether or not the [2] card has a vowel on the other side is irrelevant because the rule is satisfied either way.

Then it's a different set of cards. I know about the rule of A to B doesn't mean B to A. I'd learned that back in school. This is not the classic equal sign in math.

Dan8267 says

Problem 1

There are four cards on a table. Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other.

Rule: If there is a vowel on one side of a card, then the other side has an even number.

Which of the following cards must you turn over to determine if the rule above is being followed?

[A] [K] [2] [7]

There is only one set of cards in the problem: the set of the four cards given. This is not a trick problem. There is no linguistical slight-of-hand going on here. It's simply four cards, each of which have one face shown, and a rule which you have to determine whether or not is being followed. The rule is followed if and only if all four cards follow it.

Again, problem 1 is identical to problem 2. The failure of 96% of humans to realize this is a what causes most people to make bad decisions on policies and government representatives. People need to learn that these problems are identical and start thinking in a way that lets them solve problem 1 as easily as problem 2.

Dan8267 says

we should not ignore man-made climate change because it "does not feel like a threat",

If we want to be purely logical we would ignore climate threat. Why?
Just because CO2 was a greenhouse gas in the past doesn't mean it will be in the future.
To say CO2 will be a greenhouse gas tomorrow is inductive reasoning.
Which is invalid logically.

Who is illogical now?

See? Intelligence is not pure logic.
And wisdom even less.

When a card is manufactured, the machine has no concept of front and back, north or south. It knows one thing, when you print one side of a card an odd number, on the flip side, print a consonant. And vice versa for an even number. In the end, the cards are uniform, A to B as well as B to A.

Then, in another manufacturing process, no rules are applied.

Then the decks are mixed and shuffled. Now, the conditions apply.

We all create own our characters as a response to our fear of death and a desire for personal power and immortality. If we take the hero's journey, we attempt to father an immortal son in the form of a great deed, a great thought, a great nation, or some other thing that will live on in history or culture. This is why most men seek glory and recognition, each according to his own genius and abilities. It all comes down to the fact that we are afraid of our own mortality, and seek to transcend death with our creations.

Heraclitusstudent says

If we want to be purely logical we would ignore climate threat. Why?

Just because CO2 was a greenhouse gas in the past doesn't mean it will be in the future.

To say CO2 will be a greenhouse gas tomorrow is inductive reasoning.

Which is invalid logically.

Who is illogical now?

You.

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas because we understand the laws of physics. You are disregarding the immense knowledge we do have and making a highly illogical argument and then falsely using that illogical argument as an example of logic to discredit logic. This is disingenuous and actually demonstrates why logical thinking and scientific literacy is critical in modern times when human activity has a large impact on the environment.

And your ploy is transparent. Another reason why critical thinking skills are necessary. They weed out bullshit like what you just wrote.

Rin says

Then the decks are mixed and shuffled. Now, the conditions apply.

What you wrote is utterly meaningless. Verbal obfuscation is not a valid argument.

Quigley says

We all create own our characters

Ditto.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

There's nothing ego-centric about the original post.

Hmmmm, OK

From the original post:

Dan8267 says

The answer would have been obvious to me even at the age of seven.

And if you had half a brain or decent reading comprehension skills, you would have realized that I was making the point that solving problem 1 and understanding that it's identical to problem 2 is a really low bar. Of course, having you on the other side of an argument is always a good sign that a person is right.

Dan8267 says

What you wrote is utterly meaningless. Verbal obfuscation is not a valid argument.

I'm talking about how cards are manufactured. You never see things beyond their academic value.

I already agreed on A & 7, based on the conditions of the question.

Dan8267 says

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas because we understand the laws of physics. You are disregarding the immense knowledge we do have and making a highly illogical argument and then falsely using that illogical argument as an example of logic to discredit logic. This is disingenuous and actually demonstrates why logical thinking and scientific literacy is critical in modern times when human activity has a large impact on the environment.

I'm not disregarding any body of knowledge, I'm simply pointing out that:
A - this knowledge (the laws oh physics) is based on inductive reasoning.
B - Inductive reasoning is incorrect from a purely logical stand point.

And you know full well A and B are true statements.

There is nothing disingenuous about it. You want people to be "logical" but pure logic is a field so limited that almost nothing practical comes out of it.
No one goes through their day making purely logical reasonings.
You just can't reduce intelligence that way. Or you are the one being disingenuous.

Rin says

I'm talking about how cards are manufactured.

The cards AREN'T manufactured. They are imaginary.

Call it Crazy says

You

You think Obama was born in Kenya. Your opinion only counts as an example of what fools think.

Heraclitusstudent says

pure logic

There is no such thing as "pure logic". All of science is based on empirical observation and logic is applied to facts. No one has ever argued that observed knowledge has no place in policy making decision. You are making a ridiculous Straw Man argument that has NOTHING to do with anything I've, or anyone else in the world, has ever said.

The evidence of climate change are empirical measurements taken from tree rings, ice cores, satellite thermal imaging, and various other sources.

You have made no rational argument to support that logic should be disregarded in policy making or that we are better off with people making logical mistakes in their thinking. Your arguments are bullshit and transparently so.

Why don't you just make the argument you want to, that you don't find rationality to be appealing and it's threatening to your self-esteem? That would be a value judgement, so you couldn't be wrong about it, and it would be more genuine than what you have been saying.

If you want to debate which culture is more appealing, that's an entirely different discussion. The fact remains that we need the voting population to be smarter, more rational, and better informed in order to get our government to enact better policies. Arguing against that is sheer stupidity no matter how much you dislike feeling intellectually inferior to someone else you never met in real life.

I strongly suggest you read the book What Do You Care What Other People Think?. Feynman's philosophy is far superior to yours. And yes, that was a value judgement.

Dan8267 says

There is no such thing as "pure logic".

Of course there is. Mathematical logic is well defined and understood.
You are the one that brings up a puzzle of pure mathematical logic: not (A => B) A & not B.
And then proceeds to judge people based on that.

Dan8267 says

You have made no rational argument to support that logic should be disregarded in policy making

Because clearly I don't think it should be disregarded. This is a straw man.

Your post above argues that people who can't think logically, (based on a purely logical puzzle), can't make good decisions (in policy).
I'm simply pointing out that most reasonings are not in fact deductive logic. This implies that people can in fact have a lot of common sense even if they are bad a solving deductive logic puzzles.

Dan8267 says

Feynman's philosophy is far superior to yours.

It's also superior to yours since he was a physicist, doing inductive reasoning all the time, and he was not judging people based on their ability to solve logic puzzles.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

There is no such thing as "pure logic".

Of course there is.

A thing is held together by its opposite. For pure logic to exist, impure logic must. There is no such thing. There is only one logic. Your world view is needlessly convoluted. Such convolutions add no depth or meaning.

Heraclitusstudent says

And then proceeds to judge people based on that.

I rightfully judge that it's a problem that 96% of the population cannot apply logic correctly to a simple situation. We live in a republic. People vote for politicians to make extremely important policy decision that greatly affect our world, our health, our national security, and our very survival. In order for this system to work, people need to be able to think clearly. Otherwise you get idiots voting for politicians who protect polluters because the idiots think that a cold winter invalidates climate change. Stupidity has a strong bearing on the quality of our government, so exposing it and educating people about the problem is valid and important.

96% of people should not get problem 1 wrong. If they do, they need to learn the fallacy of their thinking because it affects how they vote, how they make financial decisions, how they raise children, and every other decision they make in life.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's also superior to yours since he was a physicist, doing inductive reasoning all the time, and he was not judging people based on their ability to solve logic puzzles.

1. I have never said that inductive reasoning should never be used to make hypothesis. Both Feynman and I are in complete agreement that science is educated guessing followed by rigorous verification.
2. The use of inductive reasoning does not invalidate the mistake of choosing [2] instead of [7] in problem 1. This was explained in the video that you evidently did not understand.
3. Everyone judges other people. I am at least using a good and important criteria. And I'm promoting a way out, a way of correcting the bad thought processes that lead to bad decision making. If you say you aren't judging people in this thread, you are lying plain and simple.
4. Like me, Feynman would not suffer a fool like you.
5. You're missing the point and trivializing the importance of clear thinking by poo-pooing the example.

Rin says

So A to B and thus B to A, does matter, as it's a card in the set which follows the rule, intrinsic to the card. With that in mind both A/7 and 2/7 have to work, otherwise, that number 2 card is not a part of same set of cards. It's from an alternate set so we're not pooling the stripes of tigers and zebras here.

what the ....

Rin says

When a card is manufactured, the machine has no concept of front and back, north or south. It knows one thing, when you print one side of a card an odd number, on the flip side, print a consonant. And vice versa for an even number. In the end, the cards are uniform, A to B as well as B to A.

Really ? No offense, but I think we're finding out you aren't the brilliant guy you claim to be. Either that, or you're trolling Dan.