3 ms·

Once you understand that the author is talking about how people understand the world, it makes more sense. I actually see some parallels here to the problem of

Once you understand that the author is talking about how people understand the world, it makes more sense. I actually see some parallels here to the problem of induction, i.e. can we predict the future by generalizing a finite number of past events. The answer is going to be "no", which most people would agree with if you engaged them in a dialog about the idea. Yet most people will act as if they can predict the future based on the past. One example might be "I had a bad experience using $SOFTWARE, so if you use $SOFTWARE then our project is going to fail and it's going to suck". You're thinking "If X then Y", not "If X then P(Y) > n". I.e. you're thinking in a purely deterministic way, when the evidence really only supports a probability. This way of thinking is ultimately due to a deterministic model of how the world works, rather than a probabilistic one.

sysbin 7y ago
I'm not sure if I follow your example. Are you implying after one occurrence a person thinking "in a deterministic way" is going to take the outcome and think it will reoccur again? I don't think that is deterministic thinking because a determinists accounts all the variables that made the outcome. Such as how the software was used and understands that will be different for the outcome of some other user.
- anaphor 7y ago
  Maybe the example could be a bit clearer. In the example, the point is that they don't know all of the variables. I would define this sort of (faulty) deterministic reasoning literally as not accounting for hidden variables. If we know absolutely every variable and potential confounding factor, then deterministic reasoning works and is valid. The problem is that in pretty much every case we don't know all of the variables, and so we can't generalize from a finite number of cases. The solution that the author is giving is to think in probabilities instead.

sysbin 7y ago

I'm not sure if I follow your example. Are you implying after one occurrence a person thinking "in a deterministic way" is going to take the outcome and think it will reoccur again? I don't think that is deterministic thinking because a determinists accounts all the variables that made the outcome. Such as how the software was used and understands that will be different for the outcome of some other user.

anaphor 7y ago
Maybe the example could be a bit clearer. In the example, the point is that they don't know all of the variables. I would define this sort of (faulty) deterministic reasoning literally as not accounting for hidden variables. If we know absolutely every variable and potential confounding factor, then deterministic reasoning works and is valid. The problem is that in pretty much every case we don't know all of the variables, and so we can't generalize from a finite number of cases. The solution that the author is giving is to think in probabilities instead.