Morality doesn't make sense.

[brimstoneSalad]

One with many errors in the first chapter, or the first version, even if corrected eventually is more likely to be in error than one that covers the same subject material with fewer or no errors.

I don't agree with the "even if corrected" part. Think of it this way: if some program has very few bug fixes, is it more likely that it's nearly bug-free, or that it is not actively developed?

I said with few or no errors in covering the same subject material: IOW errors caught in one would be caught in the other because the sample chapter (or version) was rigorously assessed. Your analogy is irrelevant. The textbook lower in errors isn't simply lower in identified errors because nobody reads it or cares.

Textbook A and Textbook B each contain 100 fact claims in the first chapter. Textbook A has 20 wrong claims, Textbook B has none (all claims are correct). Textbook A releases a version 2 correcting those claims that were pointed out to be in error in the first chapter. There's every reason to believe that when it comes to the second chapter (and the book as a whole) Textbook B is still better.

Being wrong doesn't make you more right than somebody who was right to begin with. To the contrary, having so many glaring mistakes raises questions about the editorial team and suggests more errors will be made unless there are more extensive changes (not a mere superficial correction of errors that were pointed out). The company needs in the very least new policy guidelines.

It would require a change in the way you think.

How is that different from saying science getting more reliable would require a change in the scientific method? I mean, I am trying to follow the methods of science, regardless of where that leads me.

Your process is Premise 1 + Premise 2 = absurd conclusion. You then decide the conclusion is correct.
A sane person would say "Oh, one of my premises is probably wrong" and would investigate that thoroughly before accepting the conclusion.

The reasonable question to post would be "Here's my reasoning and here's the conclusion which is obviously wrong, can somebody help point out the error in my logic or which premise or premises are false?"

When you believed the Earth was flat and accepted that absurd claim about atmospheric lensing you never bothered to investigate those premises and create a model of how it worked. You are engaging in the same laziness here. Doing the hard work is of course hard. Just accepting an absurd conclusion is certainly intellectually *easier* than figuring out if there's an error somewhere else. And it's particularly easy for you, since you have a history of accepting absurd conclusions (like flat Earth, airplanes don't exist, bombs are impossible, etc.); you apparently experience no shame or embarrassment in doing so and to the contrary you relish having discovered some secret conspiracy that everybody else was foolish enough to believe.

You only get more reliable if your track record demonstrably improves.

In my opinion, my track record has demonstrably improved drastically. A few years ago, I was clueless about anything. Today, I am one of few people who have published papers in both linguistics and computer science.

Even if credible, that does not play into your track record on other subjects.

I have a strong track record on science and philosophy, but if I started doing music criticism it would not be surprising if I was frequently wrong there. It would only be surprising that I'd start doing music criticism.

One might only say I'm more likely to be right than wrong if I spoke on music criticism because merely speaking on it suggests I have extensive experience with it because of my track record of not wanting to talk about things I don't have experience with. You do not have that, you very readily talk out of your ass on things you know nothing about, so we should not expect you to know anything about the subjects you're making claims about.

[teo123]

Textbook A and Textbook B each contain 100 fact claims in the first chapter. Textbook A has 20 wrong claims, Textbook B has none (all claims are correct).

Well, very few claims in real life can be proven correct. It could be that Textbook A simply makes much more specific claims, enough specific to be easy to prove wrong. If Textbook A claims "Strabo suggested in the 5th chapter of the 8th scroll of Geography that the town 'Issa' was named after the Illyrian king 'Ionios'." (a false but specific claim), and Textbook B claims "Strabo suggester that the town 'Issa' was named after the Illyrian king 'Ionios'." (false, but less specific claim), the claim in Textbook B is much less likely to be noted as wrong.

When you believed the Earth was flat and accepted that absurd claim about atmospheric lensing you never bothered to investigate those premises and create a model of how it worked.

Why is the claim about atmospheric lensing absurd? I still don't understand that. It's not obviously wrong to claim the Earth is flat, in fact, it seems obvious that the Earth is flat.

Even if credible, that does not play into your track record on other subjects.

OK, but why then you don't trust me about the matters of computer science and linguistics? You, for example, trust BalkanInsights that "Vilo Velebita" means "Fairy of the Velebit mountain" instead of me who thinks it means "Beautiful tall woman".

[brimstoneSalad]

Even if credible, that does not play into your track record on other subjects.

OK, but why then you don't trust me about the matters of computer science and linguistics? You, for example, trust BalkanInsights that "Vilo Velebita" means "Fairy of the Velebit mountain" instead of me who thinks it means "Beautiful tall woman".

Sound knowledge on one subject doesn't equal sound knowledge in another, but insanity on any subject does bring into question the presence of insanity on another because it has to do with the way your brain is working (or failing) and not to do with the knowledge set you have -- or in the very least it has to do with the standards you hold yourself to when making claims.

I find less credible on physics a physicist who makes bizarre claims in philosophy too, because I trust less that person to keep to what he or she knows and even physics is a large domain; he or she could easily be speaking on some aspect of physics he or she is unfamiliar with, or if we're talking about cutting edge research he or she could easily be making large leaps based on inadequate knowledge.

Well, very few claims in real life can be proven correct. It could be that Textbook A simply makes much more specific claims, enough specific to be easy to prove wrong. If Textbook A claims "Strabo suggested in the 5th chapter of the 8th scroll of Geography that the town 'Issa' was named after the Illyrian king 'Ionios'." (a false but specific claim), and Textbook B claims "Strabo suggester that the town 'Issa' was named after the Illyrian king 'Ionios'." (false, but less specific claim), the claim in Textbook B is much less likely to be noted as wrong.

You're really reaching here in this analogy.

Your claims have not been wrong simply because of their specificity, so that's irrelevant here. But even if that were the case, it's inappropriate to be more specific than you have credible knowledge of -- that would be yet another failing, perhaps to pad out the page count or perhaps because the editors are just regurgitating things without fact checking.

That's why we have things like significant figures in science. A physicist who was extremely specific like that beyond the evidence and claimed to know something to hundreds of decimal places would be rightly discredited too.

Why is the claim about atmospheric lensing absurd? I still don't understand that.

It is absurd enough for you to make a claim you don't understand. I'm not going to teach you optics (again).

It's not obviously wrong to claim the Earth is flat, in fact, it seems obvious that the Earth is flat.

We've been over this. Reread the flat Earth thread.
viewtopic.php?t=1829

[teo123]

insanity on any subject does bring into question the presence of insanity on another because it has to do with the way your brain is working

What, are you saying I am insane? You mean to say I need to visit a psychiatrist?

You're really reaching here in this analogy.

What does that mean?

it's inappropriate to be more specific than you have credible knowledge of

I am not sure what you mean. If you don't know something specifically enough to check it, you don't know that at all. You can't know (justifiably truly believe) that, for example, Isidore of Seville suggested that the name of the Greek God of wine "Bacchus" comes from Latin for "walking-stick", "baculus" (because drunk people need walking sticks to walk), if you can't find where exactly he said that, right? You also can't know for sure Z3 was Turing-complete if you don't know exactly how to implement a simulation for an arbitrary Turing Machine in it, right?

That's why we have things like significant figures in science. A physicist who was extremely specific like that beyond the evidence and claimed to know something to hundreds of decimal places would be rightly discredited too.

Yes, but that is because he didn't specify exactly how to measure that to hundreds of decimal places, right?
I also remember we were being taught at the university that this "significant figures" (that the result has the same number of decimal places as the least precise of the variable measurements) is a misconception, that the precision of the result is actually calculated using partial derivatives, and may be even more precise than the measurements.

It is absurd enough for you to make a claim you don't understand.

I am not sure what you mean. I meant to say that this atmospheric lensing doesn't seem absurd at first, but the Earth being round does seem absurd until you study it.

Reread the flat Earth thread.

Which part of it do you have in mind? It's a very long thread.

[brimstoneSalad]

insanity on any subject does bring into question the presence of insanity on another because it has to do with the way your brain is working

What, are you saying I am insane? You mean to say I need to visit a psychiatrist?

Yes.

You're really reaching here in this analogy.

What does that mean?

It doesn't fit.

it's inappropriate to be more specific than you have credible knowledge of

I am not sure what you mean. If you don't know something specifically enough to check it, you don't know that at all.

You can correctly convey the equations relevant to the laws of thermodynamics without giving every single piece of information on the topic.
You don't need to convey or even know every fact that underlies what you're discussing, you just need to have the self-awareness to know what you do know and the limits of that.

Yes, but that is because he didn't specify exactly how to measure that to hundreds of decimal places, right?

It's based on the precision of measurement.

I also remember we were being taught at the university that this "significant figures" (that the result has the same number of decimal places as the least precise of the variable measurements) is a misconception, that the precision of the result is actually calculated using partial derivatives, and may be even more precise than the measurements.

As usual, you have probably misunderstood something. Significant figures are a shorthand to include uncertainty in the digit. Uncertainty notation (e.g. ±) can also be used and is a little more precise but harder to work with.

It is absurd enough for you to make a claim you don't understand.

I am not sure what you mean. I meant to say that this atmospheric lensing doesn't seem absurd at first, but the Earth being round does seem absurd until you study it.

Atmospheric lensing is immediately absurd because it takes the form of an ad hoc hypothesis. The Earth being round is not remotely absurd since it doesn't make any absurd predictions and isn't ad hoc.

Reread the flat Earth thread.

Which part of it do you have in mind? It's a very long thread.

All of it.

[teo123]

Yes.

So, what should I tell that psychiatrist? That I have a hard time accepting that my mother was in jail? Who wouldn't have a hard time accepting that?

You can correctly convey the equations relevant to the laws of thermodynamics without giving every single piece of information on the topic.

Of course, but you should to be specific enough that one reading your work can perform an experiment to check what you are saying. If you say the volume of a gas is proportional to the absolute temperature of it, but you don't tell us approximately what the absolute zero is according to you, your hypothesis is difficult or impossible to test.

You don't need to convey or even know every fact that underlies what you're discussing, you just need to have the self-awareness to know what you do know and the limits of that.

Of course, but if you think you know something, but can't answer the question "Suppose you are wrong, how could you know it?", you don't actually know that.

It's based on the precision of measurement.

I am not sure what you mean.

As usual, you have probably misunderstood something.

Why do you think that's the case? I mean, I've passed the exam about it at the university. If I misunderstood it and still passed the exam, university is useless.

Significant figures are a shorthand to include uncertainty in the digit. Uncertainty notation (e.g. ±) can also be used and is a little more precise but harder to work with.

Significant figures are only a reasonable approximation for incrementally linear systems. For most problems in science, they aren't a reasonable approximation. One obvious example: If some particle with small mass has a lot of kinetic energy, you can tell it's moving slightly less than the speed of light. You can be off by 50% (that is, be correct about 0 decimal places) about the kinetic energy of the particle, and be correct about its speed to one or two significant figures.

Atmospheric lensing is immediately absurd because it takes the form of an ad hoc hypothesis.

Many propositions in science seem to be ad-hoc hypotheses. I fail to see how you can make any predictions based on what we were taught in our chemistry classes. Like, "Why it is that fresh water does not conduct electricity, yet salty water does?". The answer is: "The salt turns into ions when diluted with water, and they therefore conduct electricity.". Then you ask: "Why it is then that if I dilute sugar with water, it doesn't conduct electricity?". The response you get is: "Well, sugar contains no metal to be ionized. Salt contains sodium.". Then you ask: "So, how come the lemon acid conducts electricity? It contains no metal.". The response you get is: "Well, the hydrogen atom there behaves like a metal.". Sounds like a how-to of pseudoscience, doesn't it?

The Earth being round is not remotely absurd since it doesn't make any absurd predictions and isn't ad hoc.

Well, unless you study it a lot, it does seem to make absurd predictions. Like that the only inhabitable area of Earth is around the north pole, and that, if you go too far from the north pole, you slide off the Earth. Or that the horizon would appear to fall as you climb.

All of it.

OK, I will when I find the time. The university is killing me.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes.

So, what should I tell that psychiatrist? That I have a hard time accepting that my mother was in jail? Who wouldn't have a hard time accepting that?

Sure, you can talk about that. Something crucial to good mental health is accepting things we don't want to believe and coming to terms with them rather than constructing fantasies.

Of course, but you should to be specific enough that one reading your work can perform an experiment to check what you are saying.

If they're not providing adequate information then they're not actually covering the topic.

Of course, but if you think you know something, but can't answer the question "Suppose you are wrong, how could you know it?", you don't actually know that.

You can appeal to the credibility of the textbook. Science books don't need to prove every claim within them, they just need to be credible.

As usual, you have probably misunderstood something.

Why do you think that's the case? I mean, I've passed the exam about it at the university. If I misunderstood it and still passed the exam, university is useless.

Eh, more or less. University education rarely means very much. It means you maybe are barely aware of a couple things. Better than nothing most of the time, but you need to take higher level courses if you want meaningful education on the topic.

Significant figures are only a reasonable approximation for incrementally linear systems. For most problems in science, they aren't a reasonable approximation. One obvious example: If some particle with small mass has a lot of kinetic energy, you can tell it's moving slightly less than the speed of light. You can be off by 50% (that is, be correct about 0 decimal places) about the kinetic energy of the particle, and be correct about its speed to one or two significant figures.

Significant figures deal with precision, they don't claim to conserve magnitude of inaccuracy.

Sounds like a how-to of pseudoscience, doesn't it?

Not really, you're just explaining it very poorly.
You need to get better at telling the difference.

[teo123]

Something crucial to good mental health is accepting things we don't want to believe and coming to terms with them rather than constructing fantasies.

So, are religious people, who believe in afterlife because they don't want to believe that it's all over when they die, mentally ill according to you? Furthermore, how is mental health a good thing if it makes people unhappy?

Science books don't need to prove every claim within them, they just need to be credible.

Well, maybe they don't need to prove every claim they make, but most textbooks I've read prove almost none of the claims they make.

University education rarely means very much.

And yet you think I should not drop out from the university?

Significant figures deal with precision, they don't claim to conserve magnitude of inaccuracy.

Well, we were taught something about the difference between accuracy (točnost) and precision (naciljanost) at the university, but I have no idea what would what you are saying mean.

Not really, you're just explaining it very poorly.

So, where am I making a mistake there? And why is chemistry worth studying if it appears so pseudoscientific? I mean, people don't have infinite amounts of time for studying what seem to be ad-hoc hypotheses.

[thebestofenergy]

So, are religious people, who believe in afterlife because they don't want to believe that it's all over when they die, mentally ill according to you? Furthermore, how is mental health a good thing if it makes people unhappy?

Someone is not either mentally sane or mentally ill.
Mental health is a spectrum, just like physical health is.
You're not either in perfect shape or terminally ill.

If you choose to believe in the afterlife because the thought of there not being one makes you uncomfortable, it certainly is a red flag for mental health.
Do you think choosing your beliefs based on comfort, rather than believing what's more likely to be true, is a teller of good psychological well-being?

Being in good mental health doesn't make people unhappy. It does the opposite.
Pay attention to a key expression he used: coming to terms with things.
By coming to terms with the fact that an afterlife is very unlikely, and accepting it, you'll be way happier than basing your entire belief on what you're too scared/worried to see, leaving you in cognitive dissonance and distorting your view of reality (which also translates to affecting other things).

And yet you think I should not drop out from the university?

Basic university education may not mean very much for personal knowledge, but getting a university degree is very useful.
It opens a whole lot of doors for you. It depends on what you want to do, but a university degree will give a much better shot at getting a job/having a successful career in the tertiary and quaternary sectors.

[teo123]

Do you think choosing your beliefs based on comfort, rather than believing what's more likely to be true, is a teller of good psychological well-being?

Yes. We live only once, it is not rational to spend our whole lives searching for some truth that doesn't make us happy.

Being in good mental health doesn't make people unhappy. It does the opposite.

Then how it is that people with higher IQ tend to be less happy?

Pay attention to a key expression he used: coming to terms with things.

I am not sure what that means. What does the word "term" mean?

Basic university education may not mean very much for personal knowledge, but getting a university degree is very useful.

In other words, universities are little but virtue signalling and diplomas are frauds, right? If so, how is it ethical to go to university and participate in such a fraud?