4 ms·
To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%, 99%, 99
by dwaltrip 9y ago
To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, and so on.
These inherent difficulties make it very easy to spread confusion and mislead the layman.
- evo_9 9y agoEsp. if you are actually trying to spread confusion. It's a depression ass state of affairs no matter how you slice it. I sometimes wonder if a truly impartial AI 'judge' can solve this; but even if we achieve some form of advanced AI that could act as that judge I can imagine some people would still fighting tooth and nail because, of course, the creators of the Ai have somehow influenced it's 'thinking' and therefor it is invalid to them.
- dwaltrip 9y agoI don't think it will ever be solved. It will be a continual effort. Some of the best tools I can think of: * cultivating a culture of critical thinking and strong opinions weakly held * increased awareness of cognitive biases and how to reduce them * educating people how to evaluate evidence and understand how theories develop [1] * open and honest discussion * shaming intellectual dishonesty * constant vigilance [1] I've been watching the Ring of Truth on YouTube. It's fantastic. We need more content like this. Link: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN7cD8IAD7dJ https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN...