3 ms·

I feel like the title is overstated. These researchers showed that feedback wasn't important in one small experiment. The title seems to imply something much br

I feel like the title is overstated. These researchers showed that feedback wasn't important in one small experiment. The title seems to imply something much broader. For example, when I'm talking about a deeply technical subject I'm well versed in, I use the correct vocal and syntax to express my ideas: I know what I'm saying. When I'm doing a small quick exercise like shown, I might say something inadvertently.

ColinWright 12y ago
> When I'm doing a small quick exercise like > shown, I might say something inadvertently. So that would mean you don't always know what you're saying, just as the title explicitly says. If the title was: You never know what you're saying. ... then it would be wrong. As it is your comment seems to say that it's right. What have I missed?
- skierscott 12y ago
  > you don't always know what you're saying > You never know what you're saying. (emphasis added) There we go. You clarified why I felt this was off -- it's making a global statement. There's almost always a condition that goes with a scientific (or even mathematical) finding. Nature overstated their results.
  - ColinWright 12y ago
    It appears to me that you're saying that > you don't *always* know what you're saying is logically the same as: > You *never* know what you're saying. That's not at all how I read it. To say: > you don't *always* know what you're saying is to say: > There are some occasions when you > don't know what you're saying. We can see that in mathematical logic wherein moving a negation across a "For all" changes it to a "There exists", and vice versa. In this case the natural language formulation matches the mathematical logic one. In particular, "never" is not the negation of "always." So that's exactly what you agreed with when you said: > When I'm doing a small quick exercise like > shown, I might say something inadvertently. That shows that there are times when you don't know what you're saying, confirming that you don't always know what you're saying. So it still seems to me like you are confirming the title, not refuting it.

ColinWright 12y ago

> When I'm doing a small quick exercise like > shown, I might say something inadvertently. So that would mean you don't always know what you're saying, just as the title explicitly says. If the title was: You never know what you're saying. ... then it would be wrong. As it is your comment seems to say that it's right. What have I missed?

skierscott 12y ago
> you don't always know what you're saying > You never know what you're saying. (emphasis added) There we go. You clarified why I felt this was off -- it's making a global statement. There's almost always a condition that goes with a scientific (or even mathematical) finding. Nature overstated their results.
- ColinWright 12y ago
  It appears to me that you're saying that > you don't *always* know what you're saying is logically the same as: > You *never* know what you're saying. That's not at all how I read it. To say: > you don't *always* know what you're saying is to say: > There are some occasions when you > don't know what you're saying. We can see that in mathematical logic wherein moving a negation across a "For all" changes it to a "There exists", and vice versa. In this case the natural language formulation matches the mathematical logic one. In particular, "never" is not the negation of "always." So that's exactly what you agreed with when you said: > When I'm doing a small quick exercise like > shown, I might say something inadvertently. That shows that there are times when you don't know what you're saying, confirming that you don't always know what you're saying. So it still seems to me like you are confirming the title, not refuting it.