Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

quote:

---

What is the point of this test?

---

The Wason card task is a very basic abstract logic task.If logic is so "natural" to humans, as you claim, the task should be pretty easy for everyone.

like people being suckered by ID? i think you are right, its hard to say sometimes,i found the best way is to look at it in a logical based way, to see if things follow, then go find the information yourself I think you can learn all you can from sources, but still not be an expert with out having a degree, i think mainly about things are not general science such as atomic physics or testing drugs and radiation on rats.
its the same thing along the lines of teachers, teachers can give you information, but very few teachers are experts on biology the way someone who works in the field is, after all a lot of things in science text books just don't match what science does sometimes

quote:

---

Sentence structure seems logical to me.

---

Is this logical grammar to you?:

There's a real world out there, Schraf. You might want to check it out sometime.

I disagree with that. It really isn't a logic task at all.What is at question, is what evidence should be collected next. Logical thinking certainly helps. But logic is what you do with the evidence you have, and collecting evidence is outside of logic.

quote:

---

And what I am getting here? Some tricky test that's supposed to show something.

---

No, it is a trivially basic abstract logic task.Haven't you been reading the thread. I've explained it's relevance to you and others several times.The fact that you think it's "tricky" demonstrates my point beautifully; abstract logic is not natural to humans.

quote:

---

Academic ivy-tower nonsense.

---

OK, THAT'S IT.I am sick to death of spending time and effort putting forth reasoned arguments and looking up evidence in this matter simply to have you handwave it away based upon nothing but your ignorance-based personal incredulity.All you've offered as rebuttal to specific claims which are backed by established science are sulky, no-effort, one or two sentence replies that consist of nothing but your personal opinions which rarely, if ever, actually address any of the specific information provided to you.You have demonstrated clearly that you don't even know what formal logic is, let alone if humans have a natural capacity for it or not.

quote:

---

The "dodging" around here is being done by the evos who can't think their way out of a paper bag but lord it over the creos though they can't follow the simplest point.

---

Hey, remember the replies Crash and I gave to your questions about why humans prefer to eat fat and sugar over vegetables that you never anwered?How about showing all of us how it's done and rebut those responses?

You amuse me no end, Schraf, with your little academic quizzes. I have 20 years' experience judging real people who have minimal academic training, and I can tell you they can recognize a fallacy if you present it to them clearly.But you don't care about that. Go ahead and live in your little academic dream world of logical puzzles, your psychological tests and the like.As if those little quizzes could describe a human being.

quote:

---

There's a real world out there, Schraf. You might want to check it out sometime.

---

Yes, and in the "real world", people are really bad at logic, even though you've claimed otherwise.Since my claims are based on established evidence, and yours are based upon...something else, I think we both know who is living in the real world and who likes to make stuff up.But anyway, your comment is irrelevant, unresponsive, and evasive.

quote:

---

What is the point of this test?

---

The Wason card task is a very basic abstract logic task.If logic is so "natural" to humans, as you claim, the task should be pretty easy for everyone.

You're absolutely right about the card test. It is a simple - but not trivial - exercise in logic. By applying logic to the problem the answer can be worked out, just as in any other deduction problem. It just isn't obvious to most people, and most do not bother to work it out.Peopel do not operate on pure logic - and for good reasons. Not even Star Trek Vulcans really operate on pure logic.

quote:

---

I disagree with that. It really isn't a logic task at all.

---

Uh, yes it is.It is a prototypical basic logic task that has been used to test logic ability in people for years.

No, it's a trick. Yes, one can trick people.

Anyone who actually addressed the problem logically would not be tricked - it really is very simple if you think about it. That people are "tricked" indicates that their thinking is not logical.

Jeez louise. I was just wondering if foreign languages felt as logical to him.I think there's something more to be said about how logic is built out of language or language built out of logic, but I'm not a good enough philospher to really tackle that topic. But an example of what I mean: Do two people who speak different languages have the same notion as what "logic" means? Do different languages (i.e. thought constructs) shape differing forms of logic? I have no idea but I think that language informs how we percieve our worlds quite a bit.

Faith, How so?1/ Does evolutionary theory predict a correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy?2/ Does that correlation exist?The answer to both 1 & 2 is YES, so who's kidding themselves?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't