Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is the correct name. Not “proptor hoc” or “proctor hoc.” Pee are oh pee tee ee are.
Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”
Deductive reasoning is powerful, since once it has been applied correctly, the conclusion it produces is undeniable. This distinguishes it from the inductive, which merely suggests the pattern found. But it has to have been applied correctly. Its power as a logical statement comes from the word “only,” as in, “this is the only explanation left standing.” For that to work, two things have to happen. First, the explanations that were identified as possible ones, must constitute an exhaustive list — a fair evaluation must have been applied to everything possible. Second, as these possibilities were eliminated, conservatism must have been consistently practiced. Nothing was eliminated until a sound argument had been assembled soundly eliminating that possibility as a possibility. If anything was bounced out due to being found merely improbable, or if the set of possibilities originally assembled was not complete, then it doesn’t work. The reasoning loses all of its persuasive power. Or should.
What brought this up: Mrs. Freeberg is out of town this Christmas. It is the first Christmas in many years in which the real tree in the living room managed to make it to December 24th.
I was just teasing her because — ignoring the dangers to sound, logical thinking posed by the post hoc fallacy — the lesson to be learned is quite clear. She sucks at watering the Christmas tree, and we now know it’s my job, because she’s way too distracted and spends too much time fiddling around with the computer while the tree dies of thirst.
It’s funny because…well, if you could see how I fiddle around with computers while neglecting other things, and how she runs around taking care of these little odds and ends including watering plants, making it look easy…well. Heh heh. I thought it was pretty funny. Uh, honey? What do you mean I get a beating when you get home?
Seriously though, it’s just something to be kept in mind when someone smugly announces: The evidence is in! It very often is not that simple, even when the evidence seems to be, scare quotes included, “overwhelming.” Overwhelming in what way? Our evidence is pretty overwhelming: The tree is doing quite well. I thought about watering the tree on 12/21, thought about it again on 12/24. Received a text message from the wife 12/25, “Did you water the tree yet?,” said to myself…uh oh. Thought about it some more the next day, and the next day, early this morning I finally got around to doing it. Tree’s doing fine! “Evidence” says I’m a maestro at this gig…after all, I never had anything to do with it in those previous years, when the tree was dying. I was way too busy. Fiddling around endlessly on the computer. Now the watering is my job, and the tree is doing fine.
Y follows X, is the situation. Proper deductive reasoning considers four possibilities:
1. X caused Y;
2. Y caused X, nevermind the fact that X was observed first;
3. There is a Z that caused both X and Y;
4. It’s just a big coincidence.
Occam’s Razor says, when there are multiple possibilities, if any one receives favoritism it should be the one that is least extravagant, or that demands the fewest presumptions. In this case, that would be the last of the four.
Because if I’m sure of anything, I’m sure of this: I do not take care of plant life better than Mrs. Freeberg. The jury is not out on that. TRUST me on this.
But…the tree’s doing fine.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.