Comments on: Too Skeptical = ? http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:07:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73117 Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:37:00 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73117 That sounds about right. I would add "over-skeptical". That sounds about right. I would add “over-skeptical”.

]]> by: Chris http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73060 Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:06:31 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73060 Let's coin a word: "creditive", meaning 'tending to give credit', 'tending to believe'. While we're at it, let's start using "under-credulous", "over-credulous", and "appropriately credulous", to help spread the idea that skepticism is not an unconditional virtue. Let’s coin a word: “creditive”, meaning ‘tending to give credit’, ‘tending to believe’. While we’re at it, let’s start using “under-credulous”, “over-credulous”, and “appropriately credulous”, to help spread the idea that skepticism is not an unconditional virtue.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73015 Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:08:39 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73015 Thanks, beta, that's a good quote. I suppose it supports my point that it comes from a mathematician rather than a scientist. yes, "charitable" may be the closest word. It isn't quite right though -- charitable is not the opposite of skeptical or credulous. Thanks, beta, that’s a good quote. I suppose it supports my point that it comes from a mathematician rather than a scientist.

yes, “charitable” may be the closest word. It isn’t quite right though — charitable is not the opposite of skeptical or credulous.

]]> by: beta Levinson http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73005 Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:57:04 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-73005 George Polya discusses the “heuristic syllogism” and the nature of plausible reasoning in <em>How to Solve It (1957)</em>, sections 6 and 7 of the article “Signs of Progress”, p. 186-190. These sections are online here: http://reposeinthee.blogspot.com/2007/02/heuristic-syllogism-and-nature-of.html In section 2 of the same article (“Signs of Progress”, page 181) he notes: "If you take a heuristic conclusion as certain, you may be fooled and disappointed; but if you neglect heuristic conclusions altogether you will make no progress at all." George Polya discusses the “heuristic syllogism” and the nature of plausible reasoning in How to Solve It (1957), sections 6 and 7 of the article “Signs of Progress”, p. 186-190. These sections are online here:

http://reposeinthee.blogspot.com/2007/02/heuristic-syllogism-and-nature-of.html

In section 2 of the same article (“Signs of Progress”, page 181) he notes:

“If you take a heuristic conclusion as certain, you may be fooled and disappointed; but if you neglect heuristic conclusions altogether you will make no progress at all.”

]]> by: katya http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-72888 Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:43:56 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/19/too-skeptical/#comment-72888 I think the word you're looking for (in terms of "just credulous enough") is "charitable": e.g. I'm willing to give the results of self-experimentation a charitable interpretation. Meehl's statement (out of context) isn't precisely skeptical = good, credulous = bad; self-experimentation isn't "fooling other people" as long as you make it clear that your N = 1 and includes the experimenter. Self-experimentation is just a more rigorous way of talking about your intuitions, and since most experiments proceed from intuitions, it shouldn't be abandoned. Also, skeptics are roundly believed not to be very much fun at parties. :) I think the word you’re looking for (in terms of “just credulous enough”) is “charitable”: e.g. I’m willing to give the results of self-experimentation a charitable interpretation. Meehl’s statement (out of context) isn’t precisely skeptical = good, credulous = bad; self-experimentation isn’t “fooling other people” as long as you make it clear that your N = 1 and includes the experimenter. Self-experimentation is just a more rigorous way of talking about your intuitions, and since most experiments proceed from intuitions, it shouldn’t be abandoned.

Also, skeptics are roundly believed not to be very much fun at parties. :)

]]>