Curt Adams said thought "everybody here" was "passably familiar with
these issues enough so to say" that most of Michael Lorrey's list
satisfied all of these conditions. Specifically, he included:
>>the Big Bang
which I'm not aware has substantial disagreement.
>>Capitalism
>>COmmunism
>>Socialism
>>SDI
which I'm not convinced here that most people do see as disputes over
facts rather than values.
>>JFK assasination
>>Roswell Incident
>>MLK assasination
>>The Philadelphia Experiment
>>the Rosenberg Trial
>>the Alger Hiss trial
>>Contragate (esp. Ollie North)
where I know lots of people suspect foul play, but I'm sure most people
really disagree on estimating the chances of such.
I really think these three word titles are not a sufficient
description of each dispute to evaluate their status regarding this
issue. More details please.
>All the literature on human reasoning I'm aware of indicates the people have
>many blatant errors in their reasoning, especially with respect to
>probabilities (particularly important to Bayesian inference, which is based
>on modifying probabilities of conflicting theories.) What evidence is there
>that *any* people, never mind ordinary ones, act like good Bayesian agents,
>apart from in science?
With "like" being the key word, lots of evidence. Of course there is
also evidence suggesting various sorts of anomolies & deviations. But
it is a stnadard first approximation. The question is: how good an
approximation is it in different contexts?
Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/