The Dunning-Kruger effect, sound like someone you know?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

More caeser salad from Ll.

You really come across as an intelligent person from your posts, so I really wonder do you read my posts and not understand them and thus actually think of them as 'word salad,' or is it just something you say to insult me while ignoring/denying the point I am making?

If all you're doing is denying/ignoring my point, even though you actually understand it, why don't you just not bother replying? Why write these entire posts just to ignore the post you're responding to and quoting?

Quote:

"Institutions" have ruls of order and codes of ethics. You seem to avoid such considerations. Not that "Institutions" dont have ethical problems, but they do seek to correct them . What have you got to say on your behalf.
When it comes to a handshake or a contract---Ill take the contract

I could discuss all this with you, but it is a deviation from the basic point that you won't acknowledge, which is that 2+2=4 was true even when humans were still grunting at each other about cave paintings and the only social institutions they had were to bow at the feet of the guy who sketched the best woolly mammoth on the wall.

Quote:

Do you carry one of those little Erwin Correy phrase maker books that create seemingly rational phrases that are comedic bullshit? PS, we really arent discussing TRUTH, were discussing FACTS and EXPERTISE

Facts must be true to be real facts. Facts are sometimes assumed to be facts until they are proven untrue, and then it is acknowledged that they weren't actual facts to begin with, at least some people can acknowledge when they're wrong.

As for expertise, experts can be wrong. Everyone in history who was an expert on facts that were later revised was no less an expert because some of the facts they knew proved wrong later.

You can also be an expert in all sorts of things that aren't true or even factual, such as expert astrologers, expert palm readers, expert fortune tellers, tarot card readers, etc. etc.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Your opinion is irrelevant to my true claim that truth is true independent of social-institutional contingencies.

Or said another way
"I deny your statement and assert that my truth is truly true."

Give an example of any fact that is more true when an expert says so, or less true if an idiot recites it as dogma without understanding it.

A fool may not truly understand the facts he or she knows, but that doesn't make them any less true as facts.

Are you going to deny that too now?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Give an example of any fact that is more true when an expert says so, or less true if an idiot recites it as dogma without understanding it.

.

I suppose an idiot may be able to be taught to repeat something that is a fact but Im sure hed entirely miss the " reason Why it is so". Thats where youre missing the point about what the term" expertise" means.

An idiot may be able to recite the periodic table but it taks expertise to work with its member elements. Sometimes you should just quit when you arent digging yourself into a hole.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You could recite "CoVI-D-19" and yet would NOT be able to produce a virus no matter how long you say the word.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I suppose an idiot may be able to be taught to repeat something that is a fact but Im sure hed entirely miss the " reason Why it is so". Thats where youre missing the point about what the term" expertise" means.

You are getting at my broader point, which is that information should be evaluated in terms of what it says and not what its source is, etc.

I won't say that I never look at the source of a news article and question it more or less because of the source, but I can do that because I regard everything as tentatively/potentially true anyway.

In short, I don't totally accept or reject any information, but rather consider in terms of ramifications, reasons it could be true or false, etc.

In other words, information and truth claims are food for critical thought; not objects for worship or ridicule.

Faith is reserved for information whose effect is proven and known. So, Bible stories, are proven and known to convey the meanings they contain; so you can have faith that those will do their job or moral guidance.

Quote:

An idiot may be able to recite the periodic table but it taks expertise to work with its member elements. Sometimes you should just quit when you arent digging yourself into a hole.

You should just quit ridiculing and start thinking and discussing things critically.

It's useless to read your negativity. You just self-indulgent when you spit that vitriol and fight like that. If you want to discuss your expertise about the periodic table, start a thread and stick to the content. Don't start talking about the periodic table and then go off ridiculing people who believe that atoms don't exist or whatever.

When you focus on ridiculing people who don't agree with the science you are interested in discussing, all it does is have the effect of being more insistent that the science is right and other things are wrong. It's not necessary to insist on how right the science is relative to other ideas because it is already given that you believe in the science; so you should just discuss what interests you about it instead of debating it against pseudoscience.

If you want to talk about flat Earth theory or some other pseudoscience, you should just think critically about it and discuss it with people who are interested in it. Don't go off ridiculing them; just tell them that satellite imagery of Earth proves that the planet is round in your mind and you don't understand why it doesn't to them. When they say the satellite pictures are a hoax, you can just say that you don't believe that such a hoax could become mainstream without being discredited, and then you agree to disagree or you discuss other aspects of the 'theory' further.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You could recite "CoVI-D-19" and yet would NOT be able to produce a virus no matter how long you say the word.

I can't tell whether you say dumb things like this because you lack the rigor to actually think about the difference between knowledge/science and engineering/application, or if you just like playing with the distinction because it's subtle and most people don't understand it at the level of popular discourse.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

You are getting at my broader point, which is that information should be evaluated in terms of what it says and not what its source is, etc.

That was NOT your broader point. You clearly proposed that an idiot could state a fact and it would still be true. I THEN followed up with "An idiot may be able to repeat a fact fully and correctly but have absolutely NO IDEA from where it came from or what its even about.
Education in science or engineering is not the mere rote memorization of unconnected facts, ITS THE APPLICATION OF A NETWORK OF FACTS, IDEAS, AND POSSIBLE METHODOLOGIES, TO CREATE NEW THINGS AND SOLVE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD. (I hope this sinks in a bit). This takes education and often an adoption of new(ish) kinds of jargon unique to the craft .

Quote:

In short, I don't totally accept or reject any information, but rather consider in terms of ramifications, reasons it could be true or false, etc

And from where do you claim this miraculously apparent skill in interpretation arises in you? Perhaps education?? Does education even play a role in your fantasy world??

Quote:

You('re) just self-indulgent when you spit that vitriol and fight like that. If you want to discuss your expertise about the periodic table, start a thread and stick to the content

Wait a darn minit. I was merely responding to your very question about giving single example where an "idiot" may clearly state a fact that is just as true as when an expert states it.
I gave you such an example so when you find that youve been bested you then start howling at me for doing what?? PLAYING UNFAIRLY?? You were the one who started screaming at max above how this thread was NOT about 2+2=4 yet you still dont understand the power of analogy and example, EVEN WHEN YOURE THE ONE WHO PROPOSES THE ANALOGY OR REQUESTS THE EXAMPLE.

"Keep your mouth shut and people will just think you're an idiot, OPEN your mouth and you remove all doubts."

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Thinkin about it, my recollection tells me that the last true autodidacts we celebrate are Ben Franklin, Winslow Homer, and maybe Charles Darwin. Im sure there are others in other civilizations but in the last 150 years , education hs played THE formal role in our species advances.

0 Replies

Been working on a theory that the Earth is a big dumpling from an exploded pot. Soon we will get swept and mopped and sent down the drain.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You are getting at my broader point, which is that information should be evaluated in terms of what it says and not what its source is, etc.
That was NOT your broader point. You clearly proposed that an idiot could state a fact and it would still be true. I THEN followed up with "An idiot may be able to repeat a fact fully and correctly but have absolutely NO IDEA from where it came from or what its even about.

You're telling me what my point was? I also said that 2+2=4 before early humans even thought about counting things. My point was that truth is true independently of the people interacting with it.

Your point is that you keep wanting to shift the focus back to people, personal qualities, and social institutions. That is the opposite direction I am trying to go, which is to recognize that truth exists independently of the humans and social-institutions that interact with it.

Quote:

Education in science or engineering is not the mere rote memorization of unconnected facts, ITS THE APPLICATION OF A NETWORK OF FACTS, IDEAS, AND POSSIBLE METHODOLOGIES, TO CREATE NEW THINGS AND SOLVE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD. (I hope this sinks in a bit). This takes education and often an adoption of new(ish) kinds of jargon unique to the craft .

Whenever you talk about the conditions and contexts that surround knowledge, you're deviating from the discussion of knowledge itself.

Quote:

Quote:

In short, I don't totally accept or reject any information, but rather consider in terms of ramifications, reasons it could be true or false, etc
And from where do you claim this miraculously apparent skill in interpretation arises in you? Perhaps education?? Does education even play a role in your fantasy world??

How do you know that 811+19=830? Did you read it in a book? Did you memorize it as part of your addition tables? Did you get a degree in mathematics? Or did you learn to add so that you can figure it out for yourself?

And do you really need to cite your 2nd grade math teacher every time you add two numbers?

Quote:

Wait a darn minit. I was merely responding to your very question about giving single example where an "idiot" may clearly state a fact that is just as true as when an expert states it.
I gave you such an example so when you find that youve been bested you then start howling at me for doing what?? PLAYING UNFAIRLY?? You were the one who started screaming at max above how this thread was NOT about 2+2=4 yet you still dont understand the power of analogy and example, EVEN WHEN YOURE THE ONE WHO PROPOSES THE ANALOGY OR REQUESTS THE EXAMPLE.

More fight-picking.

Quote:

"Keep your mouth shut and people will just think you're an idiot, OPEN your mouth and you remove all doubts."

Does assuming others are idiots without questioning your own ability to assess intelligence in others fall under the D-K effect that is the topic of this thread?

Or do you supposed everyone is just equally qualified to know without a doubt who's an idiot and who isn't without any expertise gained from any kind of educational process?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

You're telling me what my point was? I also said that 2+2=4 before early humans even thought about counting things. My point was that truth is true independently of the people interacting with it.

Are you assuming a base 10 numbering system?

In base three, 2 + 2 = 11

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
You're telling me what my point was? I also said that 2+2=4 before early humans even thought about counting things. My point was that truth is true independently of the people interacting with it.

Are you assuming a base 10 numbering system?

In base three, 2 + 2 = 11

Obviously I was referring to base 10. How often do you see it explicitly stated that calculations are being done in base 10?

That is a red herring.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

can you learn to handle the quote bars correctly? (There is an ed feature on use of tools) Your quotes and inserts dont make a lot of sense.
Its probably too late to edit your post so Id suggest you cc it and edit the CC. and just repost with corrected text and quotes. Thank you in advance

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Just to really screw around with LivingLava (I am in a fun mood).

Would you agree that 45 + 45 = 1:30?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Just to really screw around with LivingLava (I am in a fun mood).

Would you agree that 45 + 45 = 1:30?

You overestimate your opinion of fun, as per the D-K effect.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

LivingLava Mathematics is based on a middle school arithmetic. It isn't totally wrong, it is just very limited. He shuts out any knowledge of mathematics that that doesn't fit what is taught in 7th grade.

Of course, real mathematicians know a lot more than that.

The process of learning mathematics is being presented with ideas that don't fit your current knowledge. It is only at that point do you need to work out new mathematics. This process is called "learning". LivingLava has closed his mind, when he is presented with something new that doesn't fit his current understanding, he attacks it rather than learning.

Behind any discussion of Dunning-Kruger is the importance of education.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

LivingLava Mathematics is based on a middle school arithmetic. It isn't totally wrong, it is just very limited. He shuts out any knowledge of mathematics that that doesn't fit what is taught in 7th grade.

Of course, real mathematicians know a lot more than that.

Everytime you discuss any fact, whether it's 2+2=4 or anything else, there is grounding that can explain why that fact is true. Sometimes the grounding involves a lot of foundational/background knowledge, but if you are patient, you can explain that as part of the fact your are explaining. Doing so is teaching.

You don't have to be in school to teach and learn. You can write books, pamphlets, websites, or explain things over lunch. You can post explanations right here in this discussion forum.

Every time you deviate from talking about and explaining facts/knowledge and thinking critically about them to go off on your rants about academia, expertise, etc. you are just avoiding engaging in the good discussion that explains and thinks critically so that readers actually learn something besides your opinion that they can't learn, know, or think critically and discuss anything outside of academia and/or prior to spending time and money there getting a degree.

Quote:

The process of learning mathematics is being presented with ideas that don't fit your current knowledge. It is only at that point do you need to work out new mathematics. This process is called "learning". LivingLava has closed his mind, when he is presented with something new that doesn't fit his current understanding, he attacks it rather than learning.

Behind any discussion of Dunning-Kruger is the importance of education.

When you assume, narrowly, that formal academic institutions are the only way to develop intellect and knowledge; you are exhibiting the D-K effect with regard to academia.

Academic institutions are just what they are based on how people have created and sustained them in various ways. If you start with some knowledge, like mathematics, then you go on to think of ways to teach it to others and that leads to the creation of academic institutions, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to disseminate and teach the same knowledge.

You keep accusing me of not being open-minded, but you are the one with a narrow view of intellectual practice only being possible in the kinds of educational institutions you recognize.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Sometimes the grounding involves a lot of foundational/background knowledge, but if you are patient, you can explain that as part of the fact your are explaining. Doing so is teaching.

So where is it exactly that you part company with education? Is it because expertise requires education AND experience and one supersedes the other? therefore you are somewhat jealous of those whove spent time and put out the energy to obtain an education? or is it from some other enlightened position that you maintain?

As I said several times before, education is a necessity to obtaining the expertise and experience is necessary before you can actually practice in public.

I can call myself a totally enlightened stable genius geologist, but unless I display a PG license after I sign a report, or map, or ore claim, Ive got NO STANDING about my self claimed expertise , and in fact, it is, in many states and almost ALL SA countries, considered a crime of fraud by deception .

Fortunately we dont license arithmetic we just "check your ork" to see if its correct. Where a license is needed, we are required to PROVE OUR STATUS by certificate before we can go through voir dire in court or review

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Sometimes the grounding involves a lot of foundational/background knowledge, but if you are patient, you can explain that as part of the fact your are explaining. Doing so is teaching.

So where is it exactly that you part company with education?

I don't dislike 'education.' I just reject the narrow view of it that it can only occur via established, funded, educational institutions.

Your view of 'education,' 'science,' etc. are like the view of TV someone might have had before cableTV and internet multiplied the number of channels available for disseminating content. You want there to be dominant institutions that get lots of funding and distribute it among an elite, the way sponsors pay the TV networks big money to have an elite club of content-producers.

I recognize that people can learn, teach, and think critically about knowledge in lots of different ways, and all of those are ways of 'doing education.'

Now, that is not to say there aren't bad forms of 'education,' and more marginal channels attract mischievous people who want to spread BS and subvert good, truthful knowledge. But the other side of the spectrum has loads of people milking the ivory towers of this world for cushy, high-paying jobs and putting students in debt so they can travel and enjoy life while all these people work to serve them to pay off those student debts.

So education is being abused in various ways by various people for different reasons.

But no, I'm not against education. The whole reason I participate in discussion forums like this one is to (try to) discuss real content instead of getting attacked by people who just want to corral people into formal educational institutions where they will generate more money and jobs.

Quote:

Is it because expertise requires education AND experience and one supersedes the other? therefore you are somewhat jealous of those whove spent time and put out the energy to obtain an education? or is it from some other enlightened position that you maintain?

I just want to discuss actual content instead of talking about people and institutions to avoid content.

What do you prefer? Talking about science topics or talking about what's 'real science,' what isn't, and who's a real scientist and who isn't?

I prefer discussing actual science topics. Doing so doesn't require establishing who is the authority and who isn't. The point of discussing science isn't to prove you're a scientist, but to explain and otherwise critically think about and discuss science.

Quote:

As I said several times before, education is a necessity to obtaining the expertise and experience is necessary before you can actually practice in public.

You have too narrow an understanding of what constitutes education and how it works.

Quote:

I can call myself a totally enlightened stable genius geologist, but unless I display a PG license after I sign a report, or map, or ore claim, Ive got NO STANDING about my self claimed expertise , and in fact, it is, in many states and almost ALL SA countries, considered a crime of fraud by deception .

I don't care about your standing as a geologist. If anything, I think there are powerful interests that put effort into controlling public knowledge about everything that is mined, i.e. because the public is money-hungry and would go out and trash mountains and push for more oil-drilling, etc. all because they don't know how to manage money by living frugally.

So I don't care about your license or degrees. If you are honest and don't make up BS, then I just want to hear your honest thoughts and read explanations about why you think/believe something to be true or something else to be false.

What I really dislike is all the negative BS people post as a diversion to real discussion.

Quote:

Fortunately we dont license arithmetic we just "check your ork" to see if its correct. Where a license is needed, we are required to PROVE OUR STATUS by certificate before we can go through voir dire in court or review

Basically you just want to go on and on about authoritarian 'we' to propagate socialism/fascism. You basically want to say, "we control the world and you have to submit to us." Well, I and many other people don't benefit from or enjoy listening to people like you assert your authority over us in such ways, so why don't you just stick to discussing content?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Basically you just want to go on and on about authoritarian 'we' to propagate socialism/fascism. You basically want to say, "we control the world and you have to submit to us."

Really?? You are on a mind trip arent you? hope you stay well. Im done with trying to make sense out of your world (especially since much of what youve argued about in actual subject matter is underwhelming). If you cannot accept a simple fact that somewhere our scientific fields of endeavor need to be based on minimum competence and such competence is best achieved by hard work, discipline and education , with mentoring thrown in, then youve got a lot more to learn just about learning .

1 Reply

The Dunning-Kruger effect, sound like someone you know?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know