Arguing from ignorance.

There are at least forty different types of bias. The one I want to talk about this time is one that I have never seen in print, except in my own posts. It’s not in “Straight and crooked thinking” by Thoulass, a source of a lot of good discussion about biases.

I call it “arguing from ignorance”. Those who use it deliberately it are more likely to call it “better the devil you know”.

Example 1. The 2020 United States presidential election. The bias is as follows: “I don’t know how good Biden would be as president, so I’m voting for Trump”. Or “I don’t know how good Biden would be as president, so I’m campaigning for Trump”.

The bias in general goes “I don’t know … therefore …”. The bias is using ignorance as a guide to action.

Another example is “I don’t know how safe civilian nuclear power is, so I’m campaigning against it”. Or “I don’t know how safe nanoparticles are, so I’m not wearing sunscreen”.

People who follow that line of logic don’t care that there are thousands of people who DO know, or even millions of people. So long as they don’t know, they will use their own uncertainty as an excuse to follow a specific line of action.

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

Another feature I’ve noticed about people who argue from ignorance is that they are unable to distinguish between “may be” (or “might be”) and “is” (or “will”). They tend to equate “I might win first prize in the lottery” to “I will win first prize in the lottery”. They tend to equate “It may be dangerous” to “It is dangerous”.

My solution to arguing from ignorance is the “rikki tikki tavi” strategy. If I don’t know, then rather than basing an action on that ignorance, I follow rikki tikki tavi’s strategy of “run and find out”.

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

demanding job operating a crane, not much room for error, or stupid

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

You can take a horse to water but a pencil must be lead.

mollwollfumble said:

“run and find out”

we heard the more correct abbreviation is FA&FO whatever that stands for

transition said:

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

demanding job operating a crane, not much room for error, or stupid

The teacher was also WA’s Accident Investigator. After he had taught us the crane operators course, he said “That’s what I HAVE TO teach you, now here is a bunch of photos of dead people killed while operating, or near, a crane”.

Then he handed out a stack of photos of splattered people. Several students had to go outside to vomit.

It was the most important five minutes of my education in crane operation.

It’s not a game. People die when you get it wrong. The people who choose ignorance because they are lazy, are dangerous to be around.

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

> Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

Not good enough. There’s a huge amount of misinformation on the internet.

• The most reliable source of information is a PhD thesis. eg. for understanding the Urey-Miller experiment, it’s essential to read Miller’s PhD.
• Next most reliable. Paid research reports. eg. Paid research into Gympie flooding.
• User manuals for computer programs. eg. For ANSYS.
• Printed handbooks. Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, Hypnosis handbook, Timoshenko, Sarpkaya “Wave forces on offshore structures”.
• Journal articles with three or more authors.
• Attenborough documentaries.
• Science biographies. eg. Mary Roach, some Bill Bryson, astronaut biographies, Kornberg.

Beyond that, there’s a significant chance of error, like 10% chance of error.

• Journal articles in reputable magazines. eg. Nature, Scientific American, the Lancet, Journal of fluid mechanics.
• Financial records.
• Wikipedia.
• Conference papers.
• Press releases.
• Popular science books.
• Landline.
• TV science documentaries.

Beyond that, between 15% and 50% chance of error.

• History.
• Newspaper articles.
• Weather prediction. Climate prediction.

More than 50% chance of error.

• Ted talks.
• Anything said by a politician. eg. Al Gore.
• Twitter.
• Any claim to know what will happen more than 15 years into the future.

mollwollfumble said:

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

> Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

Not good enough. There’s a huge amount of misinformation on the internet.

• The most reliable source of information is a PhD thesis. eg. for understanding the Urey-Miller experiment, it’s essential to read Miller’s PhD.
• Next most reliable. Paid research reports. eg. Paid research into Gympie flooding.
• User manuals for computer programs. eg. For ANSYS.
• Printed handbooks. Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, Hypnosis handbook, Timoshenko, Sarpkaya “Wave forces on offshore structures”.
• Journal articles with three or more authors.
• Attenborough documentaries.
• Science biographies. eg. Mary Roach, some Bill Bryson, astronaut biographies, Kornberg.

Beyond that, there’s a significant chance of error, like 10% chance of error.

• Journal articles in reputable magazines. eg. Nature, Scientific American, the Lancet, Journal of fluid mechanics.
• Financial records.
• Wikipedia.
• Conference papers.
• Press releases.
• Popular science books.
• Landline.
• TV science documentaries.

Beyond that, between 15% and 50% chance of error.

• History.
• Newspaper articles.
• Weather prediction. Climate prediction.

More than 50% chance of error.

• Ted talks.
• Anything said by a politician. eg. Al Gore.
• Twitter.
• Any claim to know what will happen more than 15 years into the future.

Hmmm

Your list is probably about 45% accurate.

If there was really a more than 50% chance that anything said by a politician was wrong then on every subject there would be more than 1 contradictory statements, all of which were wrong.

I could say lots of things about 16 years into the future that are very likely to be correct, and on almost all of those things there would be millions of scientists who could make better predictions than I can.

I think your list reeks of disconfirmation bias :)

At the other end, I very much doubt that PhD theses are the most reliable source of information.

And if by “paid research” you mean research financed by private companies, that shouldn’t even be in the most reliable group, let alone 2nd.

On a more positive note, what is it about the Urey-Miller experiment that can only be found in Miller’s PhD (and, in the near future, your reply to this question)?

“If there was really a more than 50% chance that anything said by a politician was wrong then on every subject there would be more than 1 contradictory statements, all of which were wrong.”

Should be: all of which were more than 50% likely to be wrong

of course.

mollwollfumble said:

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A feature I’ve noticed about people who enjoy arguing from ignorance, is that they tend to make no effort to eliminate that uncertainty before taking action. It’s a personality thing.

When I got my crane ticket, one of the guys in the class wasn’t taking much notice of what was going on, so I suggested to him that he should, because this is important. He replied that “I’m not here to learn, he’s getting paid to teach me”.

It was very shortly after that, that I decided to be nowhere near a crane with him in it.

Horse —-> Water—->Drink

Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

> Ignorance —->Internet—->Information

Not good enough. There’s a huge amount of misinformation on the internet.

• The most reliable source of information is a PhD thesis. eg. for understanding the Urey-Miller experiment, it’s essential to read Miller’s PhD.
• Next most reliable. Paid research reports. eg. Paid research into Gympie flooding.
• User manuals for computer programs. eg. For ANSYS.
• Printed handbooks. Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, Hypnosis handbook, Timoshenko, Sarpkaya “Wave forces on offshore structures”.
• Journal articles with three or more authors.
• Attenborough documentaries.
• Science biographies. eg. Mary Roach, some Bill Bryson, astronaut biographies, Kornberg.

Beyond that, there’s a significant chance of error, like 10% chance of error.

• Journal articles in reputable magazines. eg. Nature, Scientific American, the Lancet, Journal of fluid mechanics.
• Financial records.
• Wikipedia.
• Conference papers.
• Press releases.
• Popular science books.
• Landline.
• TV science documentaries.

Beyond that, between 15% and 50% chance of error.

• History.
• Newspaper articles.
• Weather prediction. Climate prediction.

More than 50% chance of error.

• Ted talks.
• Anything said by a politician. eg. Al Gore.
• Twitter.
• Any claim to know what will happen more than 15 years into the future.

And ignore the fuckwits who think their opinion is more accurate and important than highly educated people who spend years studying and reporting on the subject matter.