Curious Wonder web notes

 Some areas of knowledge have their own inference rules that can either reinforce or work at cross-purposes with the rules of logic. A famous example comes from the psychologist Peter Wason. Wason was inspired by the philosopher Karl Popper's ideal of scientific reasoning: a hypothesis is accepted if attempts to falsify it fail. Wason wanted to see how ordinary people do at falsifying hypotheses. He told them that a set of cards had letters on one side and numbers on the other, and asked them to test the rule "If a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other," a simple P-implies-Q statement. The subjects were shown four cards and were asked which ones they would have to turn over to see if the rule was true. Try it:                    Most people choose either the D card or the D card and the 3 card. The correct answer is D and 7. "P implies Q" is false only if P is true and Q is false. The 3 card is irrelevant; the rule ...

Follow up to  Reciprocal Altruism  Humans are, of course, a brainy species, and are zoologically unusual in how often they help unrelated individuals (Chapter 3). Our lifestyles and our minds are particularly adapted to the demands of reciprocal altruism. People have food, tools, help, and information to trade. With language, information is an ideal trade good because its cost to the giver—a few seconds of breath—is minuscule compared with the benefit to the recipient. Humans are obsessed with individuals; remember the Blick twins from Chapter 2, one of whom bit a police officer but neither of whom could be punished because each benefited from reasonable doubt that he and not his twin did the deed. And the human mind is equipped with goal-setting demons that regulate the doling out of favors; as with kin-directed altruism, reciprocal altruism is behaviorist short hand for a set of thoughts and emotions. Trivers and the biologist Richard Alexander have shown how the demands of ...

We often hear people ask to define certain words before diving into complicated topics, or people will say "by definition" as some defeater to an argument. In the former case, it seems this is done because certain words can mean different things in different contexts and it cannot always be guaranteed that everyone will have the same understanding of the word, so asking for a definition from someone is an effort in reaching consensus in parlance and making contexts clear so that people don't talk past eachother. In the latter case, the person seems to be implying that a consensus of a word has already been reached and that the definition of the word must set further grounds of the debate or discussion. When we provide a definition in case one, we often just go by the consensus given by a trusted authority, like wikipedia, or provide context if the authority has more than one available. However, imagine that someone has discovered something new and has to come up with a de...