[LINK, TED video] Kathryn Schulz on Being Wrong
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Kathryn Schulz is a self-identified "Wrongologist" (in fact, @wrongologist is her user name on Twitter). She has written a popular book ("Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error", web site) and also writes the Slate column 'The Wrong Stuff'. Her TED talk covers the problem of disagreement, the nature of belief, overconfidence bias and how to actually change your mind. She maintains that most folks actively avoid the unpleasant feeling of "being wrong", which is an important point I have not seen before (but see The Importance of Saying 'Oops' and Crisis of Faith). Unfortunately, she does not discuss reasoning about uncertainty, so her arguments against 'the feeling of right' end up seeming rather shallow.
Discuss her TED talk here. (Her broader work is also obviously on topic.)
Quantifying ethicality of human actions
Background: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attributions-Share-Alike Unported. It was posted to Wikipedia by an author who wished to remain anonymous, known variously as "24" and "142". It was subsequently removed from view on Wikipedia, but its text has been preserved by a number of mirrors. While it could be seen as no more than a basic primer in moral philosophy, it is arguably required reading to anyone unfamiliar with the philosophical background of such concepts as Friendly AI and Coherent Extrapolated Volition.
The search for a formal method for evaluating and quantifying ethicality and morality of human actions stretches back to ancient times. While any simple view of right, wrong and dispute resolution relies on some linguistic and cultural norms, a 'formal' method presumably cannot, and must rely instead on knowledge of more basic human nature, and symbolic methods that allow for only very simple evidence.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)