There seems to be an important point here, but it all seems a little un-rigorous, rather like you just did a post on methods of alchemy or astrology.
In the end, it turned out that the alchemists were on to something (chemistry and nuclear physics) but the astrologers weren't. At this level of speculativeness, how can we tell which kind of pre-science this is? Is there good any peer-reviewed research on the predictive value of these ideas?
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Question: Which strongly held opinion did you change in a notable way, since learning more about rationality/thinking/biases?
I started to believe in the Big Bang here. I was convinced by the evidence, but as this comment indicates, not by the strongest evidence I was given; rather, it was necessary to contradict the specific reasoning I used to disbelieve the Big Bang in the first place.
Is this typical? I think it would be very helpful if, in addition to stating which opinion you have changed, you stated whether the evidence convinced you because it was strong or because it broke the chain of thought which led to your pre-change opinion.