Doubting Marcus

RSS

Posts tagged with "reason"

Bayes’ Theorem Runs the World

If you have any interest in reasoning correctly but have never taken the time to learn Bayes’ theorem, you should delay no longer as Bayes’ theorem is the correct way to update your beliefs based on the evidence gathered. I use this reasoning very frequently and only haven’t attempted to explain it here because it is math and jargon heavy. To get around this issue let’s first try a visual example and later see what the generalities are which make up the most important equation you’ll ever learn.

Say I have two jars each containing 100 marbles. One has a 50/50 split of red and green marbles and the other has 90 red marbles and 10 green marbles. Now suppose we were going to blindly draw marbles out of one of the jars without knowing which jar we are drawing from. If we draw a green marble on the first try my intuition tells me that it is much more likely to be that we are drawing from the even jar than the majority red jar because there are five times as many green marbles in the even jar. In my experience this makes sense to most people but why is this the case? Well this is where the math comes in.

To answer this the question is we must know what is the probability of my hypothesis (H) given my observations (O) which is P(H|O). According to Bayes’ theorem P(H|O) is equal to: P(O|H) P(H) / P(O).

For those weary of math this can look intimidating but P(O|H) is just the probability of seeing the observations (O) given the hypothesis (H), in other words the degree that H predicts O. And P(H) is just the probability of the hypothesis (H) before the observations (O) are taken into account. All of that is then divided by P(O) which is the probability of seeing those observations (O) irrespective of any particular hypothesis. This giant equation really breaks down to how much a hypothesis is inferred by an observation which is, intuitively, proportional to the amount that hypothesis predicts the observation while accounting for how likely you are to see the observation under any circumstance and how likely you already consider the hypothesis to be. This is the technical explanation for why if you draw one green marble it’s likely you’ve drawn from the even jar and if on the second try you draw another green marble you become even more confident that you are not pulling from the majority red jar.

Confused? I hope not, but admittedly this is one of the few areas where I find myself unable to recall what all that jargon looked like to me before I grasped the concepts. For those new to Bayes’ theorem I think seeing the concepts with Venn diagrams and Eliezer Yudkowsky’s (lengthy) intuitive explanation are the most useful but I find the best way to learn this idea is to apply it with visual or familiar examples. In upcoming posts, I’ll be doing both.

Massimo Pigliucci - Reason

Pigliucci clarifies several myths about reason and discusses the relationship of reason to science and making choices.

(Source: youtube.com)

Whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practise this precept; but other people, fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves. Yet criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as clearly as we can and put our solution in a sufficiently definite form—a form in which it can be critically discussed.

- Karl Popper - philosopher of science on the nature of rational discussion that we should try to live up to from his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery

How to Think Like A Philosopher

Massimo Pigliucci explains the method of reflective equilibrium by which one examines and filters new information.

inFact: Logical Fallacies 1

Brian Dunning, host and producer of the Skeptoid podcast, gives a quick overview of common fallacies. This series, in total under 10 minutes, is a great way to introduce anyone to logical fallacies.

Part 2: Language

Part 3: Arguing Techniques

The Monty Hall Problem

Perhaps the simplest explanation of the puzzle which could be quite useful if you could never quite figure out why it’s true.

sofiarune

I am not willing to pretend that just because we are all entitled to our beliefs that all beliefs are necessarily equivalent or that some beliefs should be considered above criticism. Nobody’s beliefs are, not mine, not anybody else’s.

- Matt Dillahunty - the host of The Atheist Experience from his speech at the Oklahoma Freethought Convention 2011

(Source: youtube.com)

The Kalam Cosmological Fallacy

The history of trying to use intuition and common sense to explain reality has been one failure after another and it’s time we recognize this says SisyphusRedeemed.

Skeptics have the very human tendency to relish debunking what we already believe to be nonsense. It is fun to recognize other people’s fallacious reasoning, but that’s not the whole point. As skeptics and critical thinkers, we must move beyond our emotional responses because by understanding how others have gone wrong and how science is subject to social control and cultural influences, we can improve our understanding of how the world works. It is for this reason that it is so important for us to understand the history of both science and pseudoscience. If we see the larger picture of how these movements evolve and figure out how their thinking went wrong, we won’t make the same mistakes.

- Michael Shermer - on the need for skeptics to understand pseudoscience from Why People Believe Weird Things