tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post6086676844788752695..comments2024-03-17T10:40:52.762-05:00Comments on The Buck Stops Here: Bad Political ArgumentationStuart Buckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-32204857341754624702009-01-31T10:42:00.000-06:002009-01-31T10:42:00.000-06:00Michael, I forgive you. Provisionally :-)Michael, I forgive you. Provisionally :-)Paul Gowderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987034334075962676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-48383139387399108862009-01-31T08:31:00.000-06:002009-01-31T08:31:00.000-06:00Wow, this is getting really heated. I'm going to ...Wow, this is getting really heated. I'm going to have to ask you guys to count to 10 before posting. If that doesn't work, you'll have to take this outside or something. :)Stuart Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-16645554202644007302009-01-31T00:41:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:41:00.000-06:00Paul, you've been on my blogroll for well over a w...Paul, you've been on my blogroll for well over a week. But if you're going to pay such <I>scant attention</I> to the contents of my blog, I'm going to have to remove you.Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-84596479777328080632009-01-29T16:07:00.000-06:002009-01-29T16:07:00.000-06:00I'm stalking you through Stuart's blog until you p...I'm stalking you through Stuart's blog until you put me on your blogroll. :-)Paul Gowderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987034334075962676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-5833058432460755042009-01-29T08:37:00.000-06:002009-01-29T08:37:00.000-06:00You're only saying that because you're involved in...You're only saying that because you're involved in the conspiracy to bring about C.<BR/><BR/>And Paul, seems like you're everywhere these days.Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-61373094501102136772009-01-25T17:31:00.000-06:002009-01-25T17:31:00.000-06:00I guess I agree with your points, although I still...I guess I agree with your points, although I still think Kohn's argument is <I>much</I> more simplistic, along the lines of my global warming hypo. <BR/><BR/>One addendum, though: I'm not sure how to apply your first approach. If it turns out as a particular educational issue that liberals tend to believe one way and conservatives the opposite, then both sides may be equally suspect in their belief-formation processes. (That seems quite likely: most people don't really think through most issues for themselves.) So where does that leave you? If you have a prior commitment to be aligned with the liberal or conservative positions on other (and separate) issues, then it may SEEM rational to you to assume that your teammates are the rational ones and it's those other guys who have the suspect belief-formation processes -- but that seems too convenient, and in any event could be said by the other side as well.Stuart Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1473542199184629152009-01-25T16:49:00.000-06:002009-01-25T16:49:00.000-06:00Hey! Long time, no e-see (even longer time no see...Hey! Long time, no e-see (even longer time no see in person!).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I am being too charitable to Kohn. But the Overcoming Bias Bayesian Conspiracy has gotten into my head enough that I can think of at least ways that "conservatives [or liberals] believe X" legitimately counts as evidence against X. <BR/><BR/>Both ways require the presupposition that we update on other people's beliefs: if someone is arguing for a particular kind of education, my posterior probability in the goodness of that kind of education is going to depend not only on my evaluation of their arguments, but also on my evaluation of their belief-formation processes. And that's rational, especially if I'm dealing with specialists: I can evaluate the arguments of an education professor to some extent, but I can't evaluate it as well as another education professor could, so some of my beliefs are going to have to be based on deference to specialized knowledge. <BR/><BR/>Then the first way Kohn-type arguments could be good is if there is a correlation with no rational connection between the beliefs. For example, if liberals overwhelmingly believed in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, while competing interpretations were more evenly divided, it would seem to count as some reason to disbelieve the Copenhagen interpretation -- or at least to discount the arguments of liberals for it, because there would be reason to believe that the belief-formation processes of liberals on quantum physics didn't track the strength of the evidence, but track something else instead -- something that causes both liberalism and Copenhagenism. <BR/><BR/>A second way would be if a false belief entails -- or at least supports -- the belief under examination. If A --> B, and the believers in B tend to believe in A, and A is false, there's reason to discount the arguments of Aists for B, because some of their belief-formation process probably comes from this false belief. <BR/><BR/>Sure, it would be better to have direct arguments and evidence for the goodness of a specific sort of education. But information about the belief-formation processes of people who support a proposition does, for a good little Bayesian, count as indirect evidence... albeit very weak evidence.Paul Gowderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987034334075962676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-32664410844486090982009-01-25T14:27:00.000-06:002009-01-25T14:27:00.000-06:00Hey Paul!I don't think Kohn is making quite that a...Hey Paul!<BR/><BR/>I don't think Kohn is making quite that argument. Look, it would be one thing if Kohn would straight-up argue, "Here's some solid evidence from cognitive psychology why learning lots of facts won't, in fact, help you with your critical thinking; and here's a specific way that critical thinking can occur in the absence of detailed factual knowledge." <BR/><BR/>Then, and only then, it might be interesting, as a tag-on argument, to ask, "So why is it that some folks think that schools should spend so much time on facts instead of critical thinking? Aha, it's because of their bias for . . . , etc., etc." <BR/><BR/> But Kohn just skips that whole first part. He just assumes, without proving, that critical thinking and factual knowledge are somehow opposed, and his only argument is to point out that (some of) the folks who think students should know facts are "right-winger[s]." <BR/><BR/>The exact equivalent would be if someone wrote against the global warming theory, not by discussing any of the facts and evidence, but simply accusing believers in global warming of being left-wingers (apparently on the assumption that the reader will think, "left-wing = false"). Or, perhaps to use your phrasing, "These people believe in global warming because they have biases," and "if we correct for the bias of being left-wing, the appeal of global warming goes away." Which <I>could</I> be true, in theory, except that it is an argument that completely ignores the <I>evidence</I>.Stuart Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-26159396199996648492009-01-25T12:00:00.000-06:002009-01-25T12:00:00.000-06:00Hmm... the claim quoted doesn't seem to be "people...Hmm... the claim quoted doesn't seem to be "people who think P are lying bastards." It seems more to be "these people think P because they have biases (in favor of reproducing the current culture)," with the implicit extension "and when we correct for these biases, the appeal of P goes away." <BR/><BR/>Read in that form, Kohn's argument seems to be legitimate. It might not be convincing, but it would, if believed, lend some support for his conclusion. Non?Paul Gowderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987034334075962676noreply@blogger.com