Why Our Brains Do Not Intuitively Grasp Probabilities

[ugly_boy]

Michael Shermer is a psychologist, author and well-known skeptic. He also writes a monthly column for Scientific American and contributes other articles to it, in addition to editing Skeptic magazine. He has an fairly short article up right now about why humans have a hard time thinking-as he puts it-statistically rather than anecdotally.

Comments

[shig23]

It seems to me that he provides perfectly adequate evidence, if his goal is to prove, not that odd coincidences are not mystical in origin, but that they need not be mystical. In other words, if natural causes provide an adequate explanation, there's no reason to go looking for supernatural causes.

Out of curiosity, what sort of evidence could he have presented that would convince you?

[shig23]

Now, if the hawk did something not typical for a hawk to do...like landing on your shoulder ...that I would read something into

If it's unusual but not impossible, why the need to read anything into it? There are plenty of natural, if farfetched, explanations for why a hawk might land on somebody's shoulder. Even a farfetched explanation is better than a supernatural one (and in respect to your disdain of that term, I use it here to mean anything that can't be addressed scientifically, such as meaningful connections between unrelated events).

Now, if a hawk landed on my shoulder and declared, "I am that I am," then I might start to wonder... but only after I checked for hidden speakers, and my own sanity.

[psiumbreon]

Thought I'd add this since it was in the spotlight and it sounds cool.

Anyway, I have to say that this propensity for ignoring the odds is difficult to overcome; even though I find myself aware of this thought pattern, I can't always shake it.

[ugly_boy]

Same here. I find it really interesting how easy it is to fall into the same "traps" even when you are equipped with solid scientific or other information. I always laugh at myself when I find I've fallen for something or jumped to an unsupportable conclusion.

[urwen_sakurafu]

I agree wholeheartedly with this sort of thing. This is why my first question when told about a new discovery is "what are the stats like"? I want to know the probability that interesting thing X could happen by chance.

[ugly_boy]

And even if you can't know the exact stats, a highly unlikely event is always more likely than one that requires some new understanding of the natural world.

[tormod]

Just because something CAN happen by chance does not mean there is nothing controlling what actually DOES happen.

Particle physics tells us that just about anything we can conceive of happening actually could happen, including walking on water or passing through walls. Newtonian physics says those things are impossible; quantum mechanics says they are merely highly improbable.

I take that as evidence that the creator left wiggle room for miracles without violating the physics of the universe, so that everything we experience has a scientific explanation. It is up to us to assign meaning to all the random, unconnected events in the universe.

[tormod]

The fact that our brains put more weight on anecdotal information than statistical information should put us on guard against politicians more than against theologians.

[ugly_boy]

Especially when people try to mix science and religion. Bad combo.

[tormod]

Indubitably. That way leads to the Dark Ages.

[boynamed_crow]

It's a categorical error to assume that spiritual experiences can be marked empirically, and vice versa. The two are almost mutually exclusive and should be respected as such.

[ugly_boy]

Why? This type of special pleading for supernatural/spiritual phenomena is totally undeserved. If a phenomenon occurs then there is no reason why it should not be measurable and observable. It seems to me that something like ESP or clairvoyance should be rather easy to demonstrate and replicate in a controlled setting.