2009.01.06 Nymf's Science Circle: "Critical Thinking" - The Kira Institute
Starting from a scientific world view - we ask the question, what else is true
HomeAbout the InstituteCurrent InitiativesPast InitiativesPublicationsContact
Home arrow Current Initiatives arrow 2009.01.06 Nymf's Science Circle: "Critical Thinking"
2009.01.06 Nymf's Science Circle: "Critical Thinking"

This is the transcript from the Nymf's Science Circle monthly meeting which took place on 2009.01.06.

Mook Maruti have a presentation on "Critical Thinking"

Vic Michalak: Hi everyone.... while we are waiting for stragglers to show up (sending out IMs and notices).... I would like to welcome all of you to the "kickoff" event for Nymf's Science Circle!
Vic Michalak: Today Mook Maruti will be talking on "Critical Thinking".....
Vic Michalak: In harmony with the Kira group's mission to explore the roots of scientific thought....
Vic Michalak: ...the Science Circle will investigate a few general topics that go to the root of how we approach science...
Vic Michalak: Mook would like to give her presentation first and she will signal if she would like response to certain sections.....
Vic Michalak: Otherwise if we can hold questions and discussion until after the talk....
Vic Michalak: We would like to make this an hour-long event (but of course people can stay to talk afterwards -- :) )....
Vic Michalak: I would also like to thank genesis and the Kira Board for allowing us to meet here at this great site!
Vic Michalak: Without further ado then I give you Mook Maruti.....
Mook Maruti: Hi. Thank you all for coming today and thank you to Kira's Cafe for hosting us and to Vic for doing all that he does :)
Mook Maruti: My talk today will be "A Beginners's Guide to Critical Thinking"
Mook Maruti: What is critical thinking? Many of you may already be familiar with the concept but lets start with the basics.
Mook Maruti: "Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately." -The Critical Thinking Co.
Mook Maruti: Or let’s look at a more in depth definition…
Mook Maruti: Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. –Criticalthinking.org
Mook Maruti: Wow … quite a bit to chew on there. So let’s try to break it down a little bit.
Mook Maruti: First ... we have to ask ourselves why critical thinking is important.
Mook Maruti: Our Eyes, Ears, Nose, Tongue, Skin provide our bodies with sensations which they pick up from the outside world. These sensations are transmitted by nerves to the biological structures which will translate them.
You decline Thothica SL III, Entrance (141, 130, 29) from A group member named shingles Fotherington.
Mook Maruti: Biological-the sensations provided by the senses (eyes, ears, hands, fingers & skin, nose, tongue) are inputted by nerves to the Brain which then translates, decodes, and encodes messages and sends them out through the nervous system.
Mook Maruti: Cognitive-Translations through the biological and psychological dimensions of the thinking process of the perceptions and reactions into concepts, ideas, assumptions, suppositions, inferences, hypotheses, questions, beliefs, premises, logical arguments, etc...
Mook Maruti: Communications-Takes the messages from the brain and translates them into verbal, non-verbal, and written language to communicate the thoughts and ideas which were generated.
Mook Maruti: Along all the way there are things that work against us.
Mook Maruti: Our senses can fail us in all sorts of ways. Low light, perception of distance, auditory effects, even smells can send false signals to our brains.
Mook Maruti: Memories have been shown to be completely unreliable is many studies. How certain we are that a memory is true has no relationship to whether or not it actually is. (See “The Science of False Memory by Charles J. Brainerd, Valerie F. Reyna)
Mook Maruti: Our biases can shade our judgment. Sometimes just wanting something to be true can push us to take shortcuts in our thought process.
Mook Maruti: I personally think critical thinking is important because I wish to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. This may not always be the most comfortable way to look at the world, but it is the most honest.
Mook Maruti: So .. when faced with a decision to believe a claim or not, what should we do?
Mook Maruti: James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology, Department of Social Sciences, Indian River Community College in Florida. He has states in his Critical Thinking Field Guide:
Mook Maruti: "The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method...
Mook Maruti: To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them: Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word "FiLCHeRS" stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim...
Mook Maruti: The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.
Vic Michalak: :)
Mook Maruti: Let’s briefly cover the rules laid out by Prof. Lett.
Mook Maruti: Falsifiability - It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.
Mook Maruti: It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.
Mook Maruti: The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it).
Mook Maruti: The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.
claudio Rau: eccoti adesso vedo
Mook Maruti: :)
Soon Zenovka: più che una sciarpa sembra un cappio
Mook Maruti: The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence.
claudio Rau: un pitone
claudio Rau: ma c'è un dibattito?
Mook Maruti: silencio por favor
Mook Maruti: This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.
Mook Maruti: Logic - Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound
Mook Maruti: An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.
Mook Maruti: The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference.
Mook Maruti: An invalid argument can be recognize by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.
Mook Maruti: Consider the following syllogism for example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample. If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound.
Mook Maruti: Not all valid arguments are sound, however. Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.
Mook Maruti: To determine whether a valid argument is sound is frequently problematic; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation.
Mook Maruti: If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.
Mook Maruti: Knowing the most common logical fallacies can help you avoid logic traps. Here is a link to one such list:
Mook Maruti: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Mook Maruti: There are numerous examples of logical fallicies..but we would be hear all night going over them all :)
Mook Maruti: Getting back to our Filch...
Mook Maruti: Comprehensiveness - The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive -- that is all of the available evidence must be considered.
Mook Maruti: For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it.
Mook Maruti: This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification. Nevertheless, it is a rule that is frequently broken by proponents of paranormal claims and by those who adhere to paranormal beliefs.
Mook Maruti: Honesty - The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.
Mook Maruti: The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination.
Mook Maruti: If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as well.
Mook Maruti: This is one of the hardest things to do in science..but the most neccesary.
Mook Maruti: Anybody have any questions so far?
Mook Maruti: :)
Mook Maruti: Let's go on then.
Mook Maruti: Replicability - If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.
Mook Maruti: The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence.
Mook Maruti: A single experimental result is never adequate in and of itself, whether the experiment concerns the production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability.
Mook Maruti: Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error.
Mook Maruti: The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized.
Mook Maruti: If the experimental results are the product of deliberate fraud, the rule of replicability will ensure that the experiment will eventually be performed by honest researchers.
Mook Maruti: This is a rule that is frequently ignored by Homeopathy proponents. If a small scale test gives a slightly positive result it is often cited as proof even though the results could not be replicated by others and is likely just "noise" in the system.
Mook Maruti: Sufficiency - The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
Mook Maruti: 1. the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant
Mook Maruti: 2. extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence
Mook Maruti: and,,
Mook Maruti: 3. evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim
Mook Maruti: Let's look at number one
Mook Maruti: The burden of proof always rests with the claimant for the simple reason that the absence of disconfirming evidence is not the same as the presence of confirming evidence.
Mook Maruti: I could claim that an invisible alien spaceship is hovering over a taco stand in Texas right now. Although it is impossible for you to disprove my statement, this does not mean that it is automatically true.
Mook Maruti: If the absence of disconfirming evidence were sufficient proof of a claim, then we could "prove" anything that we could imagine.
Mook Maruti: Belief must be based not simply on the absence of disconfirming evidence but on the presence of confirming evidence. It is the claimant's obligation to furnish that confirming evidence.
Mook Maruti: Number two
Mook Maruti: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for the obvious reason of balance.
Mook Maruti: If I claim that it rained for ten minutes on my way to work last Tuesday, you would be justified in accepting that claim as true on the basis of my report.
Mook Maruti: But if I claim that I was abducted by extraterrestrial aliens who whisked me to the far side of the moon and performed bizarre medical experiments on me, you would be justified in demanding more substantial evidence.
Mook Maruti: Who here owns a car?
Vic Michalak: In SL?
Mook Maruti: In Rl
Jiraiya Teskat: me
Deepthinker Oh: me
Scathach Rhiadra: me
Vic Michalak: "
Mook Maruti: Ok Jir..we'll go with you :)
Mook Maruti: What color is it?
JeanPierre Euler: not me
Jiraiya Teskat: dark grey
Mook Maruti: Who here belives jir?
Mook Maruti: I do
Vic Michalak: me 2
Jiraiya Teskat: ty
Scathach Rhiadra: i do
Mook Maruti: Now...if Jir was to say his car got 70 miles to the gallon..who would believe him?
Vic Michalak: I would aske where you got it!
Mook Maruti: I might..if he had evidence that it is an experimental vehicle...
Mook Maruti: I might not even have to see it if he was convincing enough.
Mook Maruti: What if he told you it could fly?
Mook Maruti: What level of evidence would you need to believe that claim?
Scathach Rhiadra: would need to see it
Vic Michalak: Go for a ride!
Mook Maruti: video? it could be faked
Ludwig John: I want see it
Mook Maruti: Exactly...we would want to see it fly in person
Mook Maruti: The level of evidence must match the claim.
Vic Michalak: [As long as he was a good pilot...]
Mook Maruti: The color..sure....the milage..maybe...the flying....I better get a ride first :)
Mook Maruti: Thanks Jir..you can land your car now :)
Jiraiya Teskat: yw
Mook Maruti: The ordinary evidence of my testimony, while sufficient for ordinary claims, is not sufficient for extraordinary ones.
Mook Maruti: Number three
Mook Maruti: 3. evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim
Mook Maruti: No amount of expertise in any field is a guarantee against human fallibility, and expertise does not preclude the motivation to lie; therefore a person's credentials, knowledge and experience cannot, in themselves be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a claim.
Mook Maruti: Moreover, a person's sincerity lends nothing to the credibility of his or her testimony. Even if people are telling what they sincerely believe to be the truth, it is always possible that they could be mistaken.
Mook Maruti: Perception is a selective act, dependent upon belief context, expectation, emotional and biochemical states, and a host of other variables.
Mook Maruti: Memory is notoriously problematic, prone to a range of distortions, deletions, substitutions and amplifications.
Mook Maruti: Therefore the testimony that people offer of what they remember seeing or hearing should always be regarded as only provisionally and approximately accurate; when people are speaking about the paranormal, their testimony should never be regarded as reliable evidence in and of itself.
Mook Maruti: The possibility and even the likelihood of error are far too extensive.
Mook Maruti: Passing all six tests, of course, does not guarantee that the claim is true (just because you have examined all the evidence available today is no guarantee that there will not be new and disconfirming evidence available tomorrow), but it does guarantee that you have good reasons for believing the claim.
Mook Maruti: In conclusion…
Mook Maruti: Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully.
Mook Maruti: You may be required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.
Mook Maruti: Thank you for your attention :)
Vic Michalak: claps....
Samuel Okelly: thank you mook! :)
Scathach Rhiadra: Thank you mook:)
Genesis Zhangsun: Thank you Mook! Very concise and clear explanation of critical thinking :)
Jiraiya Teskat: Ty Mook, awesome!
Mook Maruti: If there are any questions I 'll do my best..but otherwise it's now open to discussion.
Vic Michalak: We have about 15 minutes for discussion now in our hour....
Genesis Zhangsun: Maybe a couple of questions...
Genesis Zhangsun: if you wouldn't mind
Mook Maruti: Ok Gen..go ahead
Genesis Zhangsun: Well perhaps could you take about the issue of replicability and the problem that quantum mechanics presents
Genesis Zhangsun: that is very large topic
Genesis Zhangsun: of course
Mook Maruti: lol...what a gift for understatement
Genesis Zhangsun: but it seems that replicability is not the foundation for science that it was in the past would you say?
Mook Maruti: I"m afraid that would take many more hours to cover
Vic Michalak: May I comment on that?
Mook Maruti: please do Vic
Vic Michalak: We know that in quantum mechanics that probability is important, not just cause and effect....
Vic Michalak: So I would say that replicability would have to be extended to a "probable" occurrence....
Mook Maruti: I look at it this way...
Vic Michalak: Probability is at least defined...
Mook Maruti: drop a ball
Mook Maruti: it will fall to the ground
Mook Maruti: the countless times a ball was dropped...it falls
Mook Maruti: if you are in a gravity well of course :)
Mook Maruti: just because the possibility is there that it might go up...
Mook Maruti: doesn't mean it will..or is likely to
Vic Michalak: Of course quantum mechanics on a macro scale is pretty determinable....
Mook Maruti: we must go with what we can expect from our current understanding
Mook Maruti: Does that help at all?
Genesis Zhangsun: sure yes thanks for addressing that
Vic Michalak: Another question: So Mook, just when did you see this invisible alien spaceship over the taco stand? :)
Mook Maruti: I didn't..it's invisible..remember :)
Mook Maruti: I just heard their order for burriots
Mook Maruti: burritos
Vic Michalak: okay... a gotcha there...
Genesis Zhangsun: so could we say in science that what can be proven is not necessarily "true" but highly probable
Mook Maruti: sure...science deals with evidence..not truth
Mook Maruti: Any other questions?
Vic Michalak: A comment: It is interesting that there is always something conceivable that could disprove a premise but that If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance in which a conclusion could not follow from the premises then the argument is invalid.
Samuel Okelly: would it be equally true to say that science deals with "reasoned belief"?
Mook Maruti: Science deals with evidence...belief is a term that doens't really apply
Mook Maruti: at least not used in teh same way that a religion might use it
Genesis Zhangsun: Yes but when you were talking about logic as one of the foundations you used the word "true"
Genesis Zhangsun: a true claim v. a false claim
Mook Maruti: belief in science it to trust the claim because the evidence currently supports it
Genesis Zhangsun: I guess I just wondered what exactly was meant by true in that context
Samuel Okelly: What “evidence” is there to know that what our senses tell us has any resemblance to an exterior world?
Genesis Zhangsun: true there just seems to be highly probable
Vic Michalak: "Belief" as in there in an event being highly probable, like the sun rising... Then it is "true" to say that the "sun will come up tomorrow"...
Mook Maruti: True as meaning supported by the evidence..not as a world view
Genesis Zhangsun: so true as in highly probable
Mook Maruti: sure...if you wish to think of it that way
Genesis Zhangsun: well perhaps you could explain a bit more...
Andrej Babenco: yes
Mook Maruti: most people don't understand quantum mechanics the way those who study it do
Mook Maruti: including myself
Vic Michalak: Particularly if the event can only be expressed probabilistically... or if you are talking about individual behavior and only know the behavior of a population....
Mook Maruti: saying QM means that anything is possible misrepresents the science of it
Mook Maruti: Vic is better at QM than I am :)
Vic Michalak: yes, because there is an increasingly small probability that some events may occur... which is a good thing or we could not live in the world...
Vic Michalak: By the way, since "memory is notoriously problematic, prone to a range of distortions, deletions, substitutions and amplifications", I have made a transcript of this talk and discussion, if no one minds my sharing this with others.
Vic Michalak: Please let me know...
Mook Maruti: Please do Vic :)
Genesis Zhangsun: well even putting aside the issue of QM and you look purely at the logic point, inductive inferences (which much of Science relies on ) cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion
Genesis Zhangsun: only a high probability
Vic Michalak: :)
Mook Maruti: we can only go by what the current evidence tells us...if the evidence changes..so do our views
Genesis Zhangsun: yes indeed that is the beauty of science I suppose :)
Deepthinker Oh: but do we always change our views to match the evidence?
Vic Michalak: yes, indeed!
Genesis Zhangsun: the ability to adapt and evolve as new information come sin
Genesis Zhangsun: *comes in
Mook Maruti: inferences must still meet the scrutiny of the scientific method
Andrej Babenco: mmm...what about the Acasual events ??
Samuel Okelly: isnt that simply another way of describing "reasoned belief"?
Vic Michalak: Technically our time is up for our hour.... Do you want to go for another five minutes?
Genesis Zhangsun: ty so much again Mook and Vic :)
Vic Michalak: Of course you are welcome to stay and enjoy the fire and chat...
Mook Maruti: Let me give some links that might help...
Pila Mulligan: hi Mook, I'm sorry to have missed you talk -- I look forward to seeing the transcript
Mook Maruti: http://www.criticalthinking.org
Deepthinker Oh: Great job! Yea Mook
Mook Maruti: http://www.criticalthinking.org
Mook Maruti: http://www.criticalthinking.org
Vic Michalak: Thank you again Mook for that very interesting presentation --- I will have to use your points next time I make a claim!
Mook Maruti: http://skeptoid.com/
Mook Maruti: NP..I enjoyed it :)
Mook Maruti: thank you all for your attention :)
Vic Michalak: Mook is always available by IM.... (if you do not mind)...
Vic Michalak: By the way, the answer to "How is the Dalai Lama's view of science like Second Life?" has in part to do with the concept of "comprehensiveness" [free advertisement for my Happy Hour talk tomorrow on "Science and Second Life"].
Mook Maruti: I don't mind..if I can't answer any questions I can direct you to better minds :)
Vic Michalak: An advantage of SL! :)
Vic Michalak: Thanks again everyone.... Nymf's Science Circle meets at 1130 SLT on the first Tues. of every month....
Genesis Zhangsun: Deepthinker would you care to expand on your question [12:33] Deepthinker Oh: but do we always change our views to match the evidence?
Vic Michalak: If you would like to present on a topic of interest in science, please see me or one of the other owners of that group...
Deepthinker Oh: I was thinking that sometimes we become selective in what evidence we select or believe.
Deepthinker Oh: I was reminded of james watson, one of the discoverers of the structue of DNA
Samuel Okelly: science is laden with theory..., it could not progress otherwise
Deepthinker Oh: he made statement to the press about differences in intelligent between racial groups and demostrates a breakdown in logical thinking
Deepthinker Oh: critical thinking too
Mook Maruti: Sam..Theory the way science uses the word and the way teh public generally does are two different things
Deepthinker Oh: Thus even a scientist with great credentials can hold views that are at odds with all the available evidence
Deepthinker Oh: Thus even a scientist with great credentials can hold views that are at odds with all the available evidence
Samuel Okelly: does that mean theres one rule for science and another for everything else?
Genesis Zhangsun: interesting case Deepthinker...where the scientist could not get past his own pre judgmenets
Deepthinker Oh: I would think that if one is critical in her thinking in one area then that applied to all areas
Samuel Okelly: i think we all have a clear understanding of what is meant by something being" true"
Mook Maruti: no..but gravity is a theroy...do you not trust it?
Vic Michalak: Oooo... you have just hit on a really good point (about "theory).... poorly understood by the public/media.... EVERYTHING is a theory - see Fallibility argument
Genesis Zhangsun: yes Deepthinker but sadly not try
Genesis Zhangsun: *true
Mook Maruti: by the time something is science is labled a theory it has gone througth the scientific ringer and is based on evidence
Samuel Okelly: “…Sufficiency - The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim…”.
Samuel Okelly: How would this statement tally with the possibility of a stone age man , through observation of the sun and pebbles on a beach, coming to the conclusion that the earth was not flat but spherical yet unable to support his belief.
Samuel Okelly: This mean that such a belief is not valid because no evidence could at this time be offered in support of such a claim and therefore render the claim inadequate to establish the truth.
Mook Maruti: he would have to go with the evidence he had
Mook Maruti: and change his theory as new evidence either supported or refuted his claims
Samuel Okelly: but would it still be true for him to say the world is a sphere?
Deepthinker Oh: and for the cave man his assumptions would have no practical implications, thus he could wait for later generations to find proof
Genesis Zhangsun: yes I suppose he would have to
Genesis Zhangsun: but yes Samuel I see your point
Deepthinker Oh: Sherlock Holmes was happy if the world went around the sun or if the sun went around the world.
Mook Maruti: true in the sense that the current evidence supported it
Samuel Okelly: Whilst I would not wholly disagree with what you have said mook , I would question whether or not it goes far enough. I agree that ““…the evidence must matter…” however I would like to have explored how, in an epistemological sense, any evidential knowledge can be said to be truly known.
Deepthinker Oh: nothing is known, we just look at the probabilities
Genesis Zhangsun: yes!
Deepthinker Oh: if it is likely to be one thing then we can try it and see
Samuel Okelly: everything is belief?
Mook Maruti: Science is based on evidence...so is critical thinking....you can explore questions beyond that but it wouldn't be science
Deepthinker Oh: at the end yes, everything is belief
Vic Michalak: We have at least one mathematician here - if I could come up with a mathematical possibility, say of the existence of tachyons, are they "real" or "true" if we might never see them? What about string theory?
Deepthinker Oh: if we can use throries to make useful preditictions then truth is a philosophical concern no practical
Deepthinker Oh: not a practical one*
Vic Michalak: I guess in the end everything is "belief" even though those beliefs may be challenged later on with better evidence or mor advanced technologies...
Deepthinker Oh: That's why Watson stuck with his belief in the presence of conflicting data
Samuel Okelly: and the quality of the "reason" given for the belief vic?
Mook Maruti: well..i'm gonna run along...enjoy your discussion :)
Vic Michalak: Thank you again Mook!
Genesis Zhangsun: bye Mook :)
Pila Mulligan: bye Mook

Home | About the Institute | Current Initiatives | Past Initiatives | Publications | Contact Site designed and developed by Josh Bergman
Copyright © Kira Institute. All rights reserved.