Comment author:[deleted]
27 August 2010 12:10:54PM
*
2 points
[-]
But how would you evaluate the claim that Volvos are safer than other cars?
You would look for explanations why Volvos are safer.
Presumably, you'd look at the accident rate for Volvos compared to the accident rate for similar cars driven by a similar demographic, as reflected, for instance in
insurance rates. (My google-fu did not find accident rates posted on the internet,
but insurance rates don't come out especially pro-Volvo.)
No, this is not what you would do. The accident rate is consistent with many theories, including the theory that Volvos are not safer.
But suppose the results showed that Volvos had only 3/4 as many accidents as
similar cars driven by similar people. Would that prove Volvos are safer?
No. Besides having a reputation for safety, Volvos also have a reputation for being
overpriced and ugly. Mostly people who are concerned about safety buy Volvos. Once the reputation exists, even if it's not true, a cycle begins that feeds on itself: Cautious drivers buy Volvos, have fewer accidents, resulting in better statistics,
leading more cautious drivers to buy Volvos.
Yes, the accident rate data is also consistent with this theory. So looking at accident rates alone isn't going to tell you anything about the safety of Volvos. And rational drivers would know this. They wouldn't buy a Volvo because it has a reputation for having fewer accidents; they would buy a Volvo because they have an explanation for why it is safer than other similar cars.
If a Montessori school cost the same, and was just as convenient for the parents,
as every other school, and all factors other than test score were equal, and
Montessori schools were believed to increase test scores, then any parent who
cared at all would choose the Montessori school.
No, they wouldn't, not if they really cared. To choose an education method on the basis of test scores is irrational. A parent that really cared would try to understand our best epistemology and act according to that. Schools and parents that employ coercion and that care about test scores are flying in the face of what we know about how knowledge grows. A good parent would know that.
It seems to me that your post devalues the role of explanations.
Comment author:jhsteinberg
30 August 2010 11:17:35AM
3 points
[-]
It seems to me that rate of car accidents would reflect only minor influence from the properties of the car: anti-lock brakes, bigger mirrors(?), etc. Things that make people think of a safe car - seat belts, air bags, etc. - serve only to prevent physical harm, not accidents. To examine the effect of volvos, you could explore accident rates for drivers on their previous cars vs. their current, comparing the transition values.
It seems to me that driver fatality is a better example than accident frequency. Driver fatality is something a Volvo would actually mitigate, and which would correlate with cautious driving.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You would look for explanations why Volvos are safer.
No, this is not what you would do. The accident rate is consistent with many theories, including the theory that Volvos are not safer.
Yes, the accident rate data is also consistent with this theory. So looking at accident rates alone isn't going to tell you anything about the safety of Volvos. And rational drivers would know this. They wouldn't buy a Volvo because it has a reputation for having fewer accidents; they would buy a Volvo because they have an explanation for why it is safer than other similar cars.
No, they wouldn't, not if they really cared. To choose an education method on the basis of test scores is irrational. A parent that really cared would try to understand our best epistemology and act according to that. Schools and parents that employ coercion and that care about test scores are flying in the face of what we know about how knowledge grows. A good parent would know that.
It seems to me that your post devalues the role of explanations.
It seems to me that rate of car accidents would reflect only minor influence from the properties of the car: anti-lock brakes, bigger mirrors(?), etc. Things that make people think of a safe car - seat belts, air bags, etc. - serve only to prevent physical harm, not accidents. To examine the effect of volvos, you could explore accident rates for drivers on their previous cars vs. their current, comparing the transition values.
It seems to me that driver fatality is a better example than accident frequency. Driver fatality is something a Volvo would actually mitigate, and which would correlate with cautious driving.