4 ms·

If more than 1 in 10 people think that a commercial airliner flying an airplane over the park constitutes a "vehicle in the park" (which I think is ridiculous b

by whakim 3y ago

If more than 1 in 10 people think that a commercial airliner flying an airplane over the park constitutes a "vehicle in the park" (which I think is ridiculous but apparently plenty of other folks don't!) I'm not sure how you can logically conclude that anyone would come close to agreeing even given your modified set of instructions.

noqc 3y ago
Suppose I ask you to play the game as an extremely petty and literal dictator, whose goal is to give as many citations as possible, any tenuous justification will do. Can you find a justification for giving that airliner a ticket? Since that parameter of the game is completely unspecified, it's at least among the explanations for why someone might have answered that way. I haven't logically concluded anything except that the experiment does a terible job of being an experiment.
- whakim 3y ago
  Sure. But you're just moving the goalposts from "what counts as a vehicle in the park" to "what counts as a vehicle in the park using even the most tenuous logic you could imagine." And I'm sure people could disagree about that, too - does the logic contain even a kernel of truth, or is it totally specious? The game simply shows that whenever you make a rule that requires any level of judgment whatsoever, what seems like "common sense" to one person may seem ludicrous to another.
  - noqc 3y ago
    You don't know what moving the goalposts is. You're moving the goalposts when you insist that my claim is that it is easy for people to agree, when my actual claim is, and always has been, that the experiment is not evidence of this.
    - whakim 3y ago
      That's not actually moving the goalposts ;) Feel free to run your own experiment - I can almost guarantee that people will disagree with statements that seem like common sense to you, e.g. "a space station orbiting above a park is not in the park."
      - noqc 3y ago
        Did you read what I said at all?

by whakim 3y ago

noqc 3y ago

Suppose I ask you to play the game as an extremely petty and literal dictator, whose goal is to give as many citations as possible, any tenuous justification will do. Can you find a justification for giving that airliner a ticket? Since that parameter of the game is completely unspecified, it's at least among the explanations for why someone might have answered that way. I haven't logically concluded anything except that the experiment does a terible job of being an experiment.

whakim 3y ago
Sure. But you're just moving the goalposts from "what counts as a vehicle in the park" to "what counts as a vehicle in the park using even the most tenuous logic you could imagine." And I'm sure people could disagree about that, too - does the logic contain even a kernel of truth, or is it totally specious? The game simply shows that whenever you make a rule that requires any level of judgment whatsoever, what seems like "common sense" to one person may seem ludicrous to another.
- noqc 3y ago
  You don't know what moving the goalposts is. You're moving the goalposts when you insist that my claim is that it is easy for people to agree, when my actual claim is, and always has been, that the experiment is not evidence of this.
  - whakim 3y ago
    That's not actually moving the goalposts ;) Feel free to run your own experiment - I can almost guarantee that people will disagree with statements that seem like common sense to you, e.g. "a space station orbiting above a park is not in the park."
    - noqc 3y ago
      Did you read what I said at all?