Talk:1901: Logical - Revision history

Nafedalbi at 12:43, 6 May 2022

2022-05-06T12:43:03Z

172.68.34.190 at 03:00, 20 March 2020

2020-03-20T03:00:08Z

162.158.178.165 at 15:42, 17 October 2017

2017-10-17T15:42:02Z

141.101.98.172 at 11:55, 13 October 2017

2017-10-13T11:55:13Z

Hkmaly at 00:49, 13 October 2017

2017-10-13T00:49:39Z

162.158.111.151: generalizations

2017-10-12T12:14:41Z

generalizations

162.158.88.188 at 09:23, 12 October 2017

2017-10-12T09:23:42Z

198.41.238.52: Randall's dumb assertion

2017-10-11T22:41:06Z

Randall's dumb assertion

Rtanenbaum at 17:39, 11 October 2017

2017-10-11T17:39:46Z

Sturmovik at 16:23, 11 October 2017

2017-10-11T16:23:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 6 May 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:: Whoosh![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.172\|141.101.98.172]] 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)		:: Whoosh![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.172\|141.101.98.172]] 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
	::: Whoosh! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.190\|172.68.34.190]] 03:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)		::: Whoosh! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.190\|172.68.34.190]] 03:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
		+	:::: f [[User:Nafedalbi\|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi\|talk]]) 12:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 20 March 2020
Line 26:		Line 26:
	: ... including the one you just used :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)		: ... including the one you just used :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
	:: Whoosh![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.172\|141.101.98.172]] 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)		:: Whoosh![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.172\|141.101.98.172]] 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
		+	::: Whoosh! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.190\|172.68.34.190]] 03:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 17 October 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:

	"... inconclusive scientific evidence against White Hat's position"? Is "inconclusive" the best you can do? Or did you mean "''only'' inconclusive"? Randall is basically attempting to use an argument from silence against anyone asserting White Hat's basic position (for which there is some very good evidence). It's ironic that to argue against the position requires using the law of non-contradiction; hence is self refuting. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52\|198.41.238.52]] 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)		"... inconclusive scientific evidence against White Hat's position"? Is "inconclusive" the best you can do? Or did you mean "''only'' inconclusive"? Randall is basically attempting to use an argument from silence against anyone asserting White Hat's basic position (for which there is some very good evidence). It's ironic that to argue against the position requires using the law of non-contradiction; hence is self refuting. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52\|198.41.238.52]] 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
		+	: The joke isn't that rational decision-making is bad, it's that many of those who aggressively espouse the importance of rational decision-making and deride the influence of emotions are rarely as rational and logical in their decision-making as they like to think they are.
		+
		+	:If nothing else, a truly rational thinker would realize that for better or worse people ARE affected by emotional cues and that as such subtly insulting those you're speaking to is not a good way to influence opinions and change decisions.
		+
		+	:And a truly self-aware rational thinker would realize that the vehemence of his later complaints about how people are illogical and emotional might have less to do with the objective importance of rationality and more to do with his own feelings being hurt because his opinions were ignored or derided.
		+
		+	:But surely that doesn't apply to anybody here and any sensation of defensiveness that might occur comes from a place of pure logic and reason, right?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.165\|162.158.178.165]] 15:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

	This comic is probably a response to the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Richard Thaler for finding ways to nudge people to decisions that the nudger believes to be more common sense.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188\|162.158.88.188]] 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)		This comic is probably a response to the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Richard Thaler for finding ways to nudge people to decisions that the nudger believes to be more common sense.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188\|162.158.88.188]] 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:55, 13 October 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:
	The problem with generalizations is that all of them are idiotic.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.151\|162.158.111.151]] 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)		The problem with generalizations is that all of them are idiotic.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.151\|162.158.111.151]] 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
	: ... including the one you just used :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)		: ... including the one you just used :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
		+	:: Whoosh![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.172\|141.101.98.172]] 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 13 October 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:

	The problem with generalizations is that all of them are idiotic.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.151\|162.158.111.151]] 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)		The problem with generalizations is that all of them are idiotic.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.151\|162.158.111.151]] 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
		+	: ... including the one you just used :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 12 October 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:

	This comic is probably a response to the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Richard Thaler for finding ways to nudge people to decisions that the nudger believes to be more common sense.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188\|162.158.88.188]] 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)		This comic is probably a response to the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Richard Thaler for finding ways to nudge people to decisions that the nudger believes to be more common sense.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188\|162.158.88.188]] 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	The problem with generalizations is that all of them are idiotic.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.151\|162.158.111.151]] 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:23, 12 October 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:

	"... inconclusive scientific evidence against White Hat's position"? Is "inconclusive" the best you can do? Or did you mean "''only'' inconclusive"? Randall is basically attempting to use an argument from silence against anyone asserting White Hat's basic position (for which there is some very good evidence). It's ironic that to argue against the position requires using the law of non-contradiction; hence is self refuting. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52\|198.41.238.52]] 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)		"... inconclusive scientific evidence against White Hat's position"? Is "inconclusive" the best you can do? Or did you mean "''only'' inconclusive"? Randall is basically attempting to use an argument from silence against anyone asserting White Hat's basic position (for which there is some very good evidence). It's ironic that to argue against the position requires using the law of non-contradiction; hence is self refuting. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52\|198.41.238.52]] 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	This comic is probably a response to the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Richard Thaler for finding ways to nudge people to decisions that the nudger believes to be more common sense.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188\|162.158.88.188]] 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 11 October 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:

	For the record I believe the advantages of using statistics over intuition were thoroughly discussed in the Michael Lewis book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball ''Moneyball''], also 538 has done studies comparing statistical approaches to election prediction to political punditry and finally the good old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_Problem Monty Hall Problem].[[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)		For the record I believe the advantages of using statistics over intuition were thoroughly discussed in the Michael Lewis book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball ''Moneyball''], also 538 has done studies comparing statistical approaches to election prediction to political punditry and finally the good old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_Problem Monty Hall Problem].[[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	"... inconclusive scientific evidence against White Hat's position"? Is "inconclusive" the best you can do? Or did you mean "''only'' inconclusive"? Randall is basically attempting to use an argument from silence against anyone asserting White Hat's basic position (for which there is some very good evidence). It's ironic that to argue against the position requires using the law of non-contradiction; hence is self refuting. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52\|198.41.238.52]] 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Potentially relevant: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1821269?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]
 [[User:Joshupetersen|Joshupetersen]] ([[User talk:Joshupetersen|talk]]) 16:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 Added the title text to the explanation and transcript. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD'''  ]]<sup>[[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]]</sup> 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 For the record I believe the advantages of using statistics over intuition were thoroughly discussed in the Michael Lewis book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball ''Moneyball''], also 538 has done studies comparing statistical approaches to election prediction to political punditry and finally the good old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_Problem Monty Hall Problem].[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 11 October 2017
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Added the title text to the explanation and transcript. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD\|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]]<sup>[[User talk:JayRulesXKCD\|what's up?]]</sup> 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)		Added the title text to the explanation and transcript. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD\|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]]<sup>[[User talk:JayRulesXKCD\|what's up?]]</sup> 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

−	For the record I believe the advantages of using statistics over intuition were thoroughly discussed in the Michael Lewis book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball\|''Moneyball''], also 538 has done studies comparing statistical approaches to election prediction to political punditry and finally the good old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_Problem \| Monty Hall Problem].[[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)	+	For the record I believe the advantages of using statistics over intuition were thoroughly discussed in the Michael Lewis book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball ''Moneyball''], also 538 has done studies comparing statistical approaches to election prediction to political punditry and finally the good old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_Problem Monty Hall Problem].[[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)