"...the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their
guesses about the future are likely to be. "
Daniel Drezner reports on Philip Tetlock's new book.
"...the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their
guesses about the future are likely to be. "
2 comments:
Nice topic, Morgan. Particularly gratifying (to me) is the tip that knowing of what one speaks is no prerequisite! :-)
This raises a lot of good points. To take but one, for example, I agree with this comment from Daniel Drezner's blog:
Confirmation bias is one of the reasons people get things wrong so often. If a study agrees with my hunch, I swallow it uncritically. If it disagrees, I'll nitpick it to pieces.
Doesn't this just sum up the (apparently useless) arguments we continually experience in the Blogosphere, in which one fact which agrees with our bias is touted, but another which disagrees is nitpicked endlessly?
The question to me is, first, how can we ever get away from this endless bickering about the objective nature of reality (if that even makes sense), and, second, once such a method has been found, how can we ever persuade others, who don't want the results given by the method to be true, to accept the results?
Post a Comment