tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post9070032146021294336..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Intro to book (part 1) new draftStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36087335411932865782011-05-10T11:55:55.013+00:002011-05-10T11:55:55.013+00:00Having seen you talk at Conway Hall, I realise thi...Having seen you talk at Conway Hall, I realise this is too late for the first edition, but have you anywhere addressed the effect of a charismatic leader? A number of times in my life I have heard people say things like "X said this and that's good enough for me." Of course there are cases when this is justified: X has more expertise on a subject than I will ever have, is generally honest and reliable etc. But I have heard it said in situations where one might reasonably expect the speaker to have come to their own conclusions independently of X.Bernard Hurleyhttp://bernardhurley.posterous.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29704687732936638682010-08-12T13:58:25.874+00:002010-08-12T13:58:25.874+00:00yes email - see top of page for addressyes email - see top of page for addressStephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54034293836337438472010-08-11T22:54:03.947+00:002010-08-11T22:54:03.947+00:00In general, as others have noted, there is too muc...In general, as others have noted, there is too much repetition.<br /><br />"How are wacky belief systems able to take sane, intelligent, college-educated people and turn them into the willing slaves of claptrap?"<br /><br />1. Wacky systems do not "take" people. The people find the systems--it's a voluntary thing, as your "willing slaves" suggests<br /><br />2. Wacky belief systems = claptrap, so you need say only one or the other.<br /><br />So, perhaps better would be:<br />"How do sane, intelligent, educated people become the willing slaves of claptrap?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31487888430780901032010-08-10T23:24:11.578+00:002010-08-10T23:24:11.578+00:00You’ve mentioned astrology twice in the last sente...You’ve mentioned astrology twice in the last sentence of the first para.<br /><br /><b>Dunning-Kruger effect, anosgnosic patients, etc.</b><br /><br />Could you put in references? I know it’s a “best-seller” like “Bad Science” and “Trick or Treatment” but I found it frustrating that I couldn’t follow up interesting things in those two books.<br /><br />I don’t know that hemispatial neglect fits in here: do the hemispatial neglecters insist that they are not hemispatial neglecters? (is this from "The Man who mistook his wife for a hat"?, if so another reference might lead readers to a great book).<br /><br /><b>Para beginning “Actually, any belief-syste…”.</b><br />Although it doesn’t logically follow the “atheistic belief system” example <i>sounds</i> like a claim/assumption that atheism is unproblematically true, something that many in your “target audience” may have “issues” with. Is there another example? <br /><br /><b>“On bullshit”</b><br />“deliberate fakery” – but if they don’t <i>care</i> about the truth then surely its not <i>deliberate</i>.<br /><br />Couldn’t you let Frankfurt have his definition and just use a new word for sincerely held bollocks? Perhaps…er…”bollocks”?<br /><br /><b>“Victims need not be stupid”</b><br />Eg Conan Doyle and the Cottingley fairies. Apparently Conan Doyle use to write to Houdini begging him to use his “powers” for the common good and wouldn't accept Houdini's protestations that they were tricks!Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62049710112304047442010-08-10T18:07:12.769+00:002010-08-10T18:07:12.769+00:00You mention the prevalence of young earth creation...You mention the prevalence of young earth creationism early on in the chapter then again later. The later mention is just repetition, and make it sound like you don't have many examples.mat robertshttp://moleseyhill.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25269435415410455202010-08-10T15:41:32.483+00:002010-08-10T15:41:32.483+00:00I feel like, in the section on bullshit, you don&#...I feel like, in the section on bullshit, you don't really disagree with Harry Frankfurt. You state a disagreement as to whether his definition of bullshit encompasses everything that is commonly referred to as bullshit, but that's not the same as disagreeing with him.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85065391437011756912010-08-10T14:07:46.201+00:002010-08-10T14:07:46.201+00:00Hi Stephen.
I left a couple of comments but on b...Hi Stephen. <br /><br />I left a couple of comments but on both I got google errors but the blog also displayed<br /><br />"Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval."<br /><br />Did you actually get them?The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60995688732375497412010-08-10T14:07:24.901+00:002010-08-10T14:07:24.901+00:00Under "On Bullshit":
You say: "I’m...Under "On Bullshit":<br /><br />You say: "I’m not suggesting that the content that’s bullshit."<br /><br />Should be "I'm not suggesting that it is the content that's bullshit."AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74572300577725886902010-08-10T14:05:59.233+00:002010-08-10T14:05:59.233+00:00Feedback on content.
On the Dunning-Kruger effect...Feedback on content.<br /><br />On the Dunning-Kruger effect; I thought that this effect was more about how people who are ignorant on a topic tend to (due to their ignorance) believe the opposite of themselves. They tend to overrate how knowledgeable they are on the subject. An allegory might be: the less you know the more certain you are that you know. Perhaps this is just a semantic difference from how you worded it but I was of the impression that the effect was more about how the ignorant tended to overestimate their knowledge and the knowledgeable tended to have much greater doubts their knowledge. In the context of the paragraph, you seem (this may be just my reading of it) to be suggesting it as more a psychological impairment or block. Too ignorant to be <i>able</i> to become knowledgeable kind of thing. <br /><br />Caveat! I could be completely wrong about what the effect is or perhaps I am misreading your usage or both :) <br /><br /><br />In general the intro is quite readable and easy to follow. I don't think it is too academic. If you did want to make it snappier though, the general style could be terser. Basically, making the points more briefly will give it a faster and lighter feel. Whenever I am trying to explain anything using the written word, I always struggle with the trade off between precision and succinctness.<br /><br />For instance.<br /><i>This book examines eight key mechanisms by which a belief system can be transformed into intellectual black hole, into a bullshit system of belief. It doesn’t attempt to explain why we are drawn to particular belief systems in the first place, or why we are often drawn to using kind of mechanisms described in this book in their defence.</i><br /><br />The first sentence sounds a little repetitious as the phrase <i>This book examines eight key mechanisms by which a belief</i> has already appeared. <br />You could probably amalgamate the two sentences into something like<br /><i>This book is not attempting to explain why we are drawn to particular belief systems or why we are drawn to using irrational mechanisms to defend them; it merely aims to highlight where the mechanism itself may be a bullshit reason to hold to a belief. </i><br /><br />Perhaps I am just being nit-picky though. In general, I would say that we both suffer from the vice of including too many caveats and accuracy enhancers. In that same sentence, I will highlight what I think are the accuracy enhancers/caveats to give you an idea of what I am on about. <i>This book examines eight key mechanisms by which a belief system can be transformed into intellectual black hole, <b>into a bullshit system of belief.</b> It doesn’t attempt to explain why we are drawn to particular belief systems <b>in the first place</b>, or why we are <b>often</b> drawn to using kind of mechanisms described in this book in their defence.</i><br /><br />I understand why you put them in there but perhaps they are slowing the sentence down, so to speak.<br /><br />Anyway, just giving my two cents.<br /> <br />Overall, I liked the content and style seems pretty clear and readable.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7409277965041362672010-08-10T14:02:21.431+00:002010-08-10T14:02:21.431+00:00If you are still moderating comments, their would ...If you are still moderating comments, their would be no point in actually publishing this. Just some feedback. <br /><br /><br /><br />Some simple editing notes on the text. Please ignore if you only want content feedback!<br /><br />In the first paragraph where you list some bizarre beliefs, you list astrology twice. <br /><br />The last sentence in the paragraph after the numbered list, the one in brackets; the first word <i>at</i> is missing the t. Also the sentence is a little muddled a the end. <br /><i>(a the end of the book are a series of letters illustrating just how charlatans can deliberately can and do use them).</i><br />I guessing you intended<br />(at the end of the book are a series of letters illustrating just how charlatans can and deliberately do use them).<br /><br />In the second paragraph after the numbered list, the expression "plain as the nose on their face" has the wrong spelling of plain; appears as <i>plane as the nose on their face</i>.<br /><br /><b>On Bullshit</b><br /><br />Opening paragraph <br /><i>I’m not suggesting that the content that’s bullshit.</i><br />should probably read something like:<br />I'm not suggesting that the content is bullshit<br />or<br />I'm not suggesting that it is the content that is bullshit<br /><br />last paragraph.<br />... <i>astrology, feng shui, Christian Science as bullshit is, I’d suggest, is the kind of faux reasonableness...</i><br />"is" is included twice (no pun intended!) Either can be chopped for perfect sense to ensue!<br /><br /><br /><b>Why do we believe what we do?</b> <br />in the first paragraph<br /><i>or why we are often drawn to using kind of mechanisms described in this book in their defence.</i><br />the word "the is missing" as in <br />or why we are often drawn to using <i>the</i> kind of mechanisms described in this book in their defence.<br /><br /><b>The H.A.D.D. hypothesis</b><br /><br />Second paragraph, last line<br /><i>...so put them where she thought would she spot them.</i><br />"she" and "would" are in the wrong order<br /><br />Second last paragraph, second line<br /><i>However, if we suppose the H.A.D.D, hypothesis... </i><br />The last full stop in the H.A.D.D. acronym is incorrectly a comma. <br /><br />Last paragraph<br /><i>Of course, I don’t deny that there was already good reason to be sceptical about appeals to what many <b>of</b> people believe when it comes to justifying beliefs in invisible agents</i><br />bolded "of" should be removed.<br /><br /><br /><b>The theory of cognative dissonanse.</b><br /><br />First paragraph <br /><i>The theory says that we motivated to reduce dissonance</i> <br />missing "are"<br />The theory says that we <i>are</i> motivated to reduce dissonance<br /><br />Third paragraph.<br /><i>That might put us in psychological bind.</i><br />The word "a" is missing <br />That might put us in <i>a</i> psychological bind.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.com