My Attitude About The Math /Science/ Logic Illiterate

[Lestat]

I will readily admit that I fall into this group. Although I prefer to think of myself as academically lazy, rather than a moron.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise."

In fact he's shown just the opposite. By his own admission. It's very curious that a person who prides himself on fighting fuzzy thinkinng would not care enough to address his own fuzzy writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so Andy? Are you saying his published books (or magazine articles), have been imprecise? I wasn't aware of this. I'm not a math person, so I've always taken for granted that any math in his books or articles can be taken to the bank. Am I being niave?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise."

In fact he's shown just the opposite. By his own admission. It's very curious that a person who prides himself on fighting fuzzy thinkinng would not care enough to address his own fuzzy writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so Andy? Are you saying his published books (or magazine articles), have been imprecise? I wasn't aware of this. I'm not a math person, so I've always taken for granted that any math in his books or articles can be taken to the bank. Am I being niave?

[/ QUOTE ]You can take it to the bank. Imprecision and ambiguity in natural language is not the same and can't really be avoided. the reader has to take responsibilty for trying to understand what is being said and a two way conversation is needed for understanding anything non-trivial.

chez

[andyfox]

I thought we were talking about his unclear writing. David has said "Neither one of us [David and Mason] claim to be professional writers . . . the language was not always grammatically perfect. This is occasionally reflected in the wording of this text. But the purpose of this book is not to get an 'A' from our English teacher. . . . So if we end a sentence with a preposition or use a few too many words or even introduce a new subject in a slightly inappropriate place, you can take solace from the fact that you can buy lots more books by Hemingway with the money we make you."

[andyfox]

"We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?"

Mason has said he holds poker authors to higher standards on these forums than others. Well he should, if they're giving poker advice.

David has said that he is a non-fuzzy, rigorous, logical thinker. He says he could write the world's best algebra book because the explains ideas more clearly than anyone else. Yet, by his own admission, he's a poor writer. If he intends to convey his ideas clearly, he should learn to write clearly.

[Lestat]

But the non-fiction bookshelves abound with technical books which are poorly written. As long as these authors aren't claiming to be english majors, why would you hold them to such high literary standards, as long as they get the technical stuff right? I guess I still don't see the problem.

[andyfox]

David is simply not a good writer. He's admitted so. If he really wants to make an impact on the world, or even on just his readers, he could spend a little time and become a better writer. Or not; it's his choice.

But when he says, for example, he could write the world's best algebra book because he can explain things in a way that more people would understand, it would certainly behoove someone who makes such a claim to be an effective writer.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?"
David has said that he is a non-fuzzy, rigorous, logical thinker. He says he could write the world's best algebra book because the explains ideas more clearly than anyone else. Yet, by his own admission, he's a poor writer. If he intends to convey his ideas clearly, he should learn to write clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the context of an internet message board I think there is a greater expectation for the reader to make an effort to understand the poster's position. I have debated philosophy with people who insist on every word being rigorously defined and it is boring and difficult to wade through to get to the point.

I think there is a place for rigorous, defined terms - if someone really doesnt get the point, or if people suspect they are talking at cross purposes. I think it's too much to require that as the standard way of posting though.

Perhaps, like Lestat, I recognise that I am a sloppy poster and that's the motivation for my defense of DS. I dont think so though - personally, I get a lot out of reading "off the cuff" posts made by someone with a radically different perspective and I think requiring rigorous definition as a matter of course would detract from that.

I do think care should be taken when someone queries exactly how you are using a word. Also, I think DS does do this if someone really doesnt understand. However, I think semantic differences are less problematic than is often claimed and dont require pre-emptive action.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt he referring to the group of people who could understand maths, science and logic if they tried but dont put in the effort (for a variety of reasons)? This seems like a pretty well defined group of people to me (although I have no idea what the percentages are).

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He is refering to a subgroup of the people who are not in the top 3% of MSL expertise and who then involve themselves in questions he vaguely defines as involving 20% MSL and who then say they are qualified to speak because of their experience in the vaguely defined 80% non MSL area of the question. He is basically telling them they should STFU because they are Morons.

[ QUOTE ]
7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 27% he is refering to are the most intelligent people who are NOT in the Top 3% of MSL expertise.

There's probably not a lot of people around here who qualify for the Top 3% of MSL expertise. David hasn't given us examples of subjects that involve 20% MSL. But I suspect he would consider a lot of the subjects discussed here to fall in that category. Not the ones which obviously involve MSL. But any philosophical question where people talk about what's "likely" sounds like it fits David's description.

I don't see a whole lot of Blatent logical errors made by people in these discussions here. When they are they are quickly pointed out. And posters who are just inept with logic are soon mostly ignored. Also, I think most people here understand conditional probability. But few people here qualify for the top 3% in MSL. I'm not sure David even qualifies for that. I may just make the grade, but I've studied much more math than David has. The funny thing is that I see him sometimes doing exactly the thing he claims people should be called morons for. The reason is exactly because he hasn't studied enough math to realize how he might be misapplying it.



David has made this claim under one formulation or another repeteadly on this Forum. If it's so clear and correct in his mind, where are the examples?

PairTheBoard

[rsk111]

Interestingly, I find that many (if not most) of the "two to four percent" that DS describes are actually very good writers as well. I'm not talking about Hemingway-type fiction here, but rather the type of writing that is required to make a logical, coherent argument.

I think that thinking clearly and logically almost forces one to write clearly, because a clear and logical mind should almost reflexively reject anything that isn't clear and logical. To someone who thinks clearly, writing something that isn't should feel like hearing nails scratching a chalkboard. It's so unpleasant to a clear-thinking mind, that the mind almost never allows it to happen.