What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Is the goal to point out contradictions in the pairs you gave?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I've been hearing it for years, always argued against it.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
If "common sense is not very common", why is it called common sense?
Slightly off topic, sorry.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Flagging everything is as good as flagging nothing, though.
I imagine psychologists can do more with it, but in practice the main thing I see formal fallacies use for is as something to shout during a debate, and it never seems to convince anyone.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
Also, do people not know every berry isn't edible? Even here where not a lot grows, there's plenty of decorative ones around that will give you the violent shits.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
When people say that, they mean they're so much smarter than everyone else they could fix it all in a moment.
Of course, in reality, the cranky old man saying that has just stayed so uninformed about the issues he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
This is a common argument in our house.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
My explanation is better:
There's three doors, of which one is the winner.
First, pick a door to exclude. You have a 66% chance of correctly excluding a non-winning door.
Next, Monty excludes a non- winning door with certainty.
Finally, open the remaining door and take the prize!
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced
And don't forget 'rich', or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can't gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Adding my own explanation, because I think it clicks better for me (especially when I write it down):
- Pick a door. You have a 66% chance of picking a wrong door, and a 33% of picking the right door.
- Monty excludes a door with 100% certainty
- IF you picked a wrong door, then there's a 100% chance the remaining door is correct (so the contingent probability is
p(switch|picked wrong) = 100%)
, so the total chance of the remaining door being correct isp(switch|picked wrong)* p(picked wrong) = 66%
. - IF you picked the right door, then Monty's reveal gives you no new information, because both the other doors were wrong, so
p(switch|picked right) = 50%
, which means thatp(switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%
. p(don't switch|picked wrong) * p(picked wrong) = 50% * 66% = 33%
(because of the remaining doors including the one you picked, you have no more information)p(don't switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%
(because both of the unpicked doors are wrong, Monty didn't give you more information)
So there's a strong benefit of switching (66% to 33%) if you picked wrong, and even odds of switching if you picked right (17% in both cases).
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I work in the risk assessment space, so they are kind of critical to be aware of, for me
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
That's more of an turn-of-phrase, no?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
presumably they mean using something besides your body heat to melt it
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
there's actually aword for this type of mixed idiom: malaphor
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Ideally you'd use an external heat source to melt the snow so you're not wasting your body heat on it. Failing that, I've also heard people recommend filling a water bottle with snow and putting it in between the layers of clothing you're wearing so it's not directly touching your skin.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I like saying "we'll burn that bridge when we come to it".
Most people don't catch it.