= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Even if you have a nail, not all hammers are the same - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (125)
"Trust experts except when you don't"?
"Don't trust experts; become one yourself"? Wouldn't that put me in the category of people-not-to-be-trusted? Isn't that what Phil is pointing out, that most people don't understand statistics? Why would I expect myself to be better at judging these kinds of problems than experts who spend their lives on it? Should I not expect myself to be just as bad at it, and potentially much worse (know enough to be dangerous)?
Yes. But it seems fundamental enough that experts should have caught it, therefore I am skeptical.
Some questions (this is an obviously incomplete* list, of course) to ask when you are in this situation:
Is the source pointing out the error reliable?
Does the criticized work acknowledge or otherwise address the claim?
Does the criticized work contain other flaws? (Subcategory: is the criticized work sloppy or lazy in execution?)
In this particular case, the answer to the third question appears to be "yes". This is probably good reason to raise your probability that this particular criticism is correct.
* Bear in mind, of course, Eliezer Yudkowsky's warning: If you want to shoot your foot off, it is never the least bit difficult to do so.
Thank you. These steps for analysis are very useful to me, and I feel they answer my original questions.