How should numeric probabilities be translated into words? Maybe they shouldn't be.
"Words of estimative probability" wreak havoc in high-stakes communication like #intelligenceCommunity assessments and briefings, in part because intelligence and defense institutions map numbers to different words (!) — see Amelia Kahn's forthcoming work at ameliakahn.wordpress.com.
Some Narrative Conventions of Scientific Discourse
Rom Harré, 1990
"The academic ‘we’ might seem at first glance to be just a version of the editorial ‘we’. Like the latter it is mutedly egocentric but it is not mainly used to imply teamwork. Rather, it is used to draw the listener into complicity, to participate as something more than an audience. "
"The moral status of persons determines the epistemic status of their results. This becomes entirely intelligible if we think in terms of trust rather than truth. Trust in someone’s results depends very much on our faith in that person, whereas truth, so it seems to me, ought to be tied to trust in a methodology, regardless of who uses it, provided they use it competently. " - Harré p 93.
"... 1. Can Violence Be Turned into an Autonomous Object of Philosophical Reflection? ...
,,, . A typical tendency of modernity leads to avoiding the analysis of violence (especially visible, strong, bloody violence), liquidating it through a sort of easy “psychiatrization”: violent people are people who “are not well”—that is, crazy people. In most cases, however, psychiatry has nothing to do with it ... "
Critical Realism: A Critical Evaluation
Tong Zhang, Social Epistemology 2022
"positivism provides the scientists with the excuse to focus on formulating and revising auxiliary theories and omit the discussion of core theories, thereby leading to the establishment of dogmatic metaphysics."
Making the circumcision controversy controversial: Going meta and taking aim at the messenger(s): Reply to Wamai et al.,
de Camargo Jr et al., 2015, Global Public Health
"For those of us who study the use of rhetoric in science, their commentary offers a fascinating example of many of the well-documented observations made by authors working in Science and Technology Studies."
Practising reflexivity: Ethics, methodology and theory construction
Supriya Subramani, 2019, Method. Innovations
"From the relativist epistemological stance that constructivist grounded theory adopts, I believe that there are multiple constructed social realities and participants, researchers, and their experiences are part of the process of constructing meanings."
Are #philosophy students’ intuitions about thought experiments different because of expertise?
Longitudinal studies of philosophy and #CogSci students (N = 226) didn't seem to reveal as much: there were some group differences in intuitions, but a selection/indoctrination effect seemed more likely than “a general expertise” or “expertise specific to particular subfields”.
"Our current scientific exploration of reality oftentimes appears focused on epistemic states and empiric results at the expense of ontological concerns. Any scientific approach without explicit ontological arguments cannot be deemed rational however, as our very Being can never be excluded from the equation."
--Leanne Whitney, Beyond Conception: Ontic Reality, Pure Consciousness and Matter https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/496 #leannewhitney#ontology#epistemology
‘There is no such thing as a real picture,’ says Samsung exec
"As soon as you have sensors to capture something, you reproduce [what you’re seeing], and it doesn’t mean anything. There is no real picture. You can try to define a real picture by saying, ‘I took that picture’, but if you used AI to optimize the zoom, the autofocus, the scene – is it real? Or is it all filters? There is no real picture, full stop."
“The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness”: Authority, Self, and the Origins of Patient Autonomy in Early Jewish Law
Ayelet Libson, Am. J. Legal History (2016)
"This article examines the pre-modern conflict between these principles, revealing how the early tradition of Jewish law sustained different models of expertise, authority and personal autonomy."
"I propose that the increasing autonomy granted to individuals to govern their own bodies should be seen as part of the Late Antique emphasis on expressing the self by the choices taken under the duress of hardship. Self-knowledge became a central concern, fully attainable only by making moral choices under circumstances of suffering."
When scientists make erroneous pronouncements outside their area of expertise that's misinformation. When they make predictions that prove wrong that can be hugely consequential. How do we stop ourselves from doing this and how do we recognise epistemic trespass in others? What actually constitutes 'expertise', particularly in novel, interdisciplinary contexts ?
Join the scibeh.org 2024 online workshop to help us all work this out
Just to give an example of how #Epistemology is incapable to keep pace with the evolution of real science:
there is no model to explain the modern breakthrough that daily happens in (Astro)Physics anytime a research switches to the next laptop or upgrades the operating system, and most macros & tools don't work anymore, and you have to use new libraries or compilers or plotting routines and the
workflow changes all together and you end up exploring the same things like never before. #astrodon😬
We have a new pape on polarisation with an #ABM of naïve Bayesian agents. It ends a decade of thinking about #testimony from a #Bayesian perspective, so I thought I’d summarise that decade in a thread.
The Issue: Much of what we believe to ‘know’ we know through the testimony of others. Intuitively, how much I adjust my beliefs in response to you saying “it is snowing” should depend on how reliable/accurate you are (ie the likelihoods associated with your report) 1/9
All of this is bad news, because the reliability/accuracy of agents in a social network (i.e., all of us in real life, much of the time!) not only changes all the time as we hear more evidence/arguments from others, our reliabilities (including our perceptions of each others’ reliability) will mutually influence each other, see (just out a month ago): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17456916231198479
so what does this all mean? #epistemology#misinformation#SocialNetworks
@imperfectcognitions@philosophy I read that as a scientific philosopher, mainly epistemologist, suffering from AD, and beacuse of that immersed somewhat in neurology, psychology and philosophy of memory.
Does not sound convincing. You pick up exceptions and make a case based on those. Reliability condition supported with some kind of robustness may still be a valid choice.
Also, I'd like to read about the more general epistemological percussions of the proposal. It's easy to rock the boat if you are not one of the rowers. (The article-link shows only the Abstract.)
TLDR; there are least 4 problems with the claim that "Argument mapping is about twice as effective at improving student critical thinking as other methods".