Is Eli a Person?

[metoo]

I wonder how much of this confirmation bias might vary by individual. If this article has any merit, it doesn't say much about our ability to solve problems or analyse things meaningfully.

Once you know of, and acknowledge, that you are subject of confirmation bias, you can counteract it. But it is an effort, so you most likely don't find it worthwhile to do it all the time.

The so-called scientific method is how to do it. Say you believe A causes B. Confirmation bias makes you notice only events where A is followed by B. But you need to record also
- A not followed by B,
- absence of A followed by B, and
- absence of A not followed by B.

Then, by doing some statistical calculation on the four numbers, you can tell if A -> B is a valid assumption, or not.

[Nightrider]

Is Eli a person?
No.

[cmfireflies]

Is Eli a person?
No.

[a_contemplative_life]

Since this thread has occasionally drifted into a discussion about our genetically programmed behaviors, I thought this might be of interest... 'confirmation bias' helps us argue, even if we're wrong.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... we-reason/

Needless to say, this new theory paints a rather bleak portrait of human nature. We like to think of ourselves as rational creatures, blessed with this Promethean gift of being able to decipher the world and uncover all sorts of hidden truths. But Mercier and Sperber argue that reason has little to do with reality, which is why I’m still convinced that those NBA players are streaky when they’re really just lucky. Instead, the function of reasoning is rooted in communication, in the act of trying to persuade other people that what we believe is true. We are social animals all the way down.

I wonder how much of this confirmation bias might vary by individual. If this article has any merit, it doesn't say much about our ability to solve problems or analyse things meaningfully.

Sometimes I wonder what Socrates would think about all that we have uncovered with the scientific method in our modern age. What would Socrates Google?

[metoo]

What would Socrates Google?

Socrates.

[rgh]

Is Eli a person?
No.

Why not? Was Elias a person? Does Elias cease to be a person after infection? What has really changed that would make him sub-human?

(Assuming your reason is other than Eli being a fictional character)

And yes, I believe Eli is a person.

[Lucibel]

What would Socrates Google?

First thing? Porn

And yes, I believe Eli is a person.

[Nightrider]

Is Eli a person?
No.

Why not? Was Elias a person? Does Elias cease to be a person after infection? What has really changed that would make him sub-human?

(Assuming your reason is other than Eli being a fictional character)

And yes, I believe Eli is a person.

Not sub-human...Such an ugly word...Elias became more than human....transcending human state...not Godlike, but pretty damn close...therefore, no longer human. But something different...maybe better, maybe worse, but something completely different. Another species, perhaps.

[Nightrider]

What would Socrates Google?

First thing? Porn

Kiddie porn...

[sauvin]

I wonder how much of this confirmation bias might vary by individual. If this article has any merit, it doesn't say much about our ability to solve problems or analyse things meaningfully.

Once you know of, and acknowledge, that you are subject of confirmation bias, you can counteract it. But it is an effort, so you most likely don't find it worthwhile to do it all the time.

The so-called scientific method is how to do it. Say you believe A causes B. Confirmation bias makes you notice only events where A is followed by B. But you need to record also
- A not followed by B,
- absence of A followed by B, and
- absence of A not followed by B.

Then, by doing some statistical calculation on the four numbers, you can tell if A -> B is a valid assumption, or not.

"Science" comes from a Latin word meaing "knowledge", and there's nothing "so-called" about the scientific method, since it's one way of deriving knowledge.

It's fine to talk about the scientific method for determining how the world or universe works in aspects that can be quantified or otherwise described in concrete terms. Examples include thermal conductivity of various materials under various conditions, transmittance of particular bands of light across different kinds of apparently transparent materials, and so on. We can even describe trends of human behaviour over time or across differing cultures when expressed in statistically empirical terms (even if causality cannot be so firmly stated).

The problem we're running into here is the same problem we've been having for a couple of years: nothing here can be quantified or definitely described. Little enough of it can even be defined - when I use the term "moral sphere", and you nod your head, I can only pray that what I meant is what you understood.