Fundamental Attribution Error



 

Projection, based on Rejection, posed as Dimension

 

The majority of those asked chose option 2. However, the probability of two events occurring together (in “conjunction“) is always less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring alone—formally, for two events A and B this inequality could be written as {\displaystyle \Pr(A\land B)\leq \Pr(A)}\Pr(A\land B)\leq \Pr(A) and {\displaystyle \Pr(A\land B)\leq \Pr(B)}{\displaystyle \Pr(A\land B)\leq \Pr(B)}.

(related: fundamental attribution error — “ the tendency for people to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics of the agent (character or intention), rather than external factors, in explaining another person’s behavior in a given situation.”)

The Incompetent Miscalibration

the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”[1]

 

 

 

CONJUNCTION FALLACY

she screamed

running out the door

like some sort of

bus riding passenger

with tourettes

yelling: The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false.

Controversy continued, however, with Popper’s putative solution not generally accepted.[13]

 

Screen Shot 2018-04-20 at 1.12.52 AM

By now, inductive inference has been shown to exist, but is found rarely, as in programs of machine learning in Artificial Intelligence (AI).[14] 

Popper’s stance on induction is strictly falsified—enumerative induction exists—but is overwhelmingly absent from science.[14] 

Although much talked of nowadays by philosophers, abduction or IBE lacks rules of inference and the discussants provide nothing resembling such, as the process proceeds by humans’ imaginations and perhaps creativity.[14]

 

LEMON JUICE V INVISIBLE INK V MORON 

  1. method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]
  2. Enumerative induction or, as the basic form of inductive inference, simply induction, reasons from particular instances to all instances, thus an unrestricted generalization.[1] If one observes 100 swans, and all 100 were white, one might infer a universal categorical proposition of the form All swans are white. As this reasoning form‘s premises, even if true, do not entail the conclusion’s truth, this is a form of inductive inference.
  3. The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false. Questions regarding the justification and form of enumerative inductions have been central in philosophy of science, as enumerative induction has a pivotal role in the traditional model of the scientific method.

How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

 He stated: “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent … The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”[6][7]

mightyisis

Although much talked of nowadays by philosophers, abduction or IBE lacks rules of inference and the discussants provide nothing resembling such, as the process proceeds by humans’ imaginations and perhaps creativity.[14]

400px-Waveforms.svg

 These predicates are unusual because their application is time-dependent;  others have argued such time-dependency depends on the language adopted, and in some languages it is equally true for natural-sounding predicates such as “green.” 
YET
they illustrate the problem of projectible predicates and ultimately, which empirical generalizations are law-like and which are not.[1][2] 

CBT_Depression_Scale2

Goodman’s construction and use of grue and bleen illustrates how philosophers use simple examples in conceptual analysis.

LAW LIKE

 

which empirical generalizations are law-like and which are not.[1][2] 

 

“Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence”

  1. download

  2. enumerative induction is not an autonomous phenomenon, but is simply a masked consequence of inference to the best explanation (IBE).[6]

  3. Russell[edit]

    Having highlighted Hume’s problem of inductionJohn Maynard Keynes posed logical probability as its answer—but then figured not quite.[7] Bertrand Russell found Keynes’s Treatise on Probability the best examination of induction, and if read with Jean Nicod’s Le Probleme logique de l’induction as well as R B Braithwaite‘s review of it in the October 1925 issue of Mind, to provide “most of what is known about induction”, although the “subject is technical and difficult, involving a good deal of mathematics”.[8] Two decades later, Russell proposed enumerative induction as an “independent logical principle”.[9][10] Russell found,

 

weak weed

 

inference based on many observations, is a myth

THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

“Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure”.[12]Popper’s 1972 book Objective Knowledge—whose first chapter is devoted to the problem of induction—opens, “I think I have solved a major philosophical problem: the problem of induction“.[12]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s