For those concerned about "Wikiality" - Page 2

xTYBALTx · 09-20-2006, 05:43 PM

1. What's independant verification? What does independant verification have to do with this discussion?

2. In Wikipedia, evidence is frequently provided or referenced.

3. I don't need or want credibility when I have evidence.

4. I seek neither mass nor populist input when determining the veracity of a statement. Nor credentials. I don't seek balance. I seek evidence and reason.

**RandomGuy** · 09-20-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Therefore, it is not unwise to balance credentialed input with mass or populist input.

I don't disagree with you but I don't feel like making an assertive statement about my agreement because I have been reading wikipedia all day!

**CingularDuality** · 09-20-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

3. I don't need or want credibility when I have evidence.

You must be using some strange definition of "credible" or "evidence".

What kind of evidence are you referring to that doesn't itself have some level of credibility?

You haven't experienced everything there is to experience in this world, therefore your knowledge depends on the credibility of other sources of knowledge. You can't verify everything you know all by yourself, can you?

xTYBALTx · 09-20-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You must be using some strange definition of "credible" or "evidence".

What kind of evidence are you referring to that doesn't itself have some level of credibility?

We're talking credibility as in credentials and the level of trust one has for a source.

Quote:

You haven't experienced everything there is to experience in this world, therefore your knowledge depends on the credibility of other sources of knowledge. You can't verify everything you know all by yourself, can you?

Please take my comments in the context of the ongoing discussion. We're talking encyclopedias.

**CingularDuality** · 09-21-2006, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

We're talking credibility as in credentials and the level of trust one has for a source.

Please take my comments in the context of the ongoing discussion. We're talking encyclopedias.

I realize we're talking about encyclopedias, but why not look at the big picture? Why do you take Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on Siberia to be credible? Is it because you've been there and know for a fact that everything that they write about it is true, or is it because that publisher is a credible source of information that thousands of people trust? If I create/edit a Wikipedia article tomorrow on anti-quarks, and the next day you are looking for information on whether or not anti-quarks exist, should you accept that entry as being credible? What if it was completely false? Now, if an expert in particle physics wrote it, wouldn't that change the credibility of that article?

Credibility is more than just credentials, although credentials can play a big part in the credibility of a person with regards to a particular subject. Your "evidence" has to have some degree of credibility too, no?

xTYBALTx · 09-21-2006, 02:54 AM

I should only accept whether quarks exist or not based upon the evidence available. If Wikipedia doesn't provide evidence, you shouldn't believe it. If an expert doesn't provide evidence, you shouldn't believe him either. An expert has to make a convincing case that quarks exist just the same as the faceless thing that is Wikipedia must make a convincing case to the same effect.

Don't mistake my position for excessive skepticism or as impractical.

**CingularDuality** · 09-21-2006, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I should only accept whether quarks exist or not based upon the evidence available. If Wikipedia doesn't provide evidence, you shouldn't believe it. If an expert doesn't provide evidence, you shouldn't believe him either. An expert has to make a convincing case that quarks exist just the same as the faceless thing that is Wikipedia must make a convincing case to the same effect.

Don't mistake my position for excessive skepticism or as impractical.

It's an article! Do you accept it as credible or not? You haven't seen a quark, much less an antiquark, have you? Wouldn't you find the particle physicist's article more credible than mine, regardless of how well written it is? No encyclopedia is going to show you the antiquark, just words. Do you believe them or not?

What about when experts with credentials are the ONLY ones that know anything about a subject?

I want you to apply your argument to this antiquark situation because I believe it will illustrate how absurd it is. Then, hopefully, you'll realize that credibility is important even in an article on the New York Yankees, despite the fact that there are more laymen that have information about that subject.

xTYBALTx · 09-21-2006, 04:23 AM

My previous post was sufficient to answer all of your concerns. Read it again. Read the thread again. You seem to misunderstand my position.

I'm done with this thread unless something new and exciting comes up.

**sordavie** · 09-21-2006, 05:02 AM

What does convincingness (for a reader) have to do with whether an encyclopedia article is accurate or not? An encyclopedia article is not an argument for something's being true. The point of an encylopedia is to concisely categorize what we take to be a common body of knowledge. Encyclpedias are reference books. They merely report, in some manner that's accessible to the general public, what it is that we, as a community, take to be true.

Most of what you know comes in the form of people telling you something without much, if any, explicit evidence. You knew when you were a child where you were born. Your parents told you so. You didn't need to see your birth certificate. You didn't need to go to the hospital and check their records. You didn't need to hire a private detective to figure it out. No. The mere fact that it is true you were born there and that your parents did not try to decieve you and told you the truth is enough to justify your belief.

You know that 19 people died in Afghanistan due to a car bomb the other day because the media reported it so. They did not provide evidence that it isn't a big hoax on the part of the media. They did not provide evidence of the bodies to your eyes with full autopsies. The mere fact that most contemporary media outlets are fairly reliable in their reports is justification enough for you to believe it. There's no formal logic to it.

Now, maybe wikipedia goes beyond what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. I don't know. But the aim of the creator seemed to be to create an easily accessible encyclopedia that has an entry on almost everything.

Back to convincingness. Something can be very convincing for you, even if the reasons given are completely crap. On the other hand, something can be totally unconvincing for you even though the reasons are very good. I spent about 10 minutes trying to convince my students that the set consisting of the even integers is the same size as the set consisting of all the integers. I then spend another 10 minutes trying to convince them that there are the same number of real numbers between zero and one as there are real numbers between negative infinity and positive infinity--that there are the same number of points on a line segment from 0 to 1 as there are on the entire line from negative infinity to infinity. I then spent sometiime trying to convince them that there are more real numbers than there are natural numbers. They just couldn't be convinced by reason. I can give them both mathematical proofs and geometric proofs. That's about as rigorous as you can get with reasoning and logic. But, they just couldn't grasp it. These were not convincing reasons to them. In the end, I had to just say, "look, trust me on this one. These reasons are good reasons." And, they are. Perhaps the most convincing them to them was that I said it and it seemed like I knew what I was talking about.

Now, there are also bad reasons that can sound like good reasons. Take a look at the science of optics. Now, they have all sorts of principles about how light rays will reflect or refract in certain situations. It all sounds very plausible. If you shine a ray of light at a reflective surface at a 45o angle, it will reflect off at a 90o angle. You can give principles for why this is and such. Problem: there are no such things as rays of light. High school students show this in their physics classes when they do the double slit experiment. Principles about rays of light sound pretty darn reasonable. It's easy to convince someone that there are such things as rays of light and that they work in these ways. But, science tells us, there really are no such things as rays of light. These principles about rays of light are just false. They're convincing reasons for false propositions.

Ok. Those are some examples from science. Now, for more ordinary matters, this are much worse. There is no formal standards of reasonableness when talking about evidence given for the majority of topics in wikipedia articles. That there's no formal standards doesn't mean some reasons aren't better than others. But, it makes it much harder for just anyone to tell. The experts in that field, however, seem to do it better, just because they are knowledgable about the field. The credentials are meant to be a sign that they are knowledgable about the field. They don't say that you must automatically believe whatever they say. Credentials lend considerable weight to what they say.

Ok. So my basic problem with saying something like, "all I need is the evidence, I can weigh their reasonableness myself and come to conclusions myself, I don't need any expert to tell me what's true or not" is that most people just can't weigh the some of that evidence in a manner that's going to get them the right result. Whether that's because it's a specialized field and you don't have the tools to weigh the evidence or because you're just bad at reasoning and you don't even have any basic tools to weigh the evidence with. Experts are those that are supposed to have these tools. That's why we deem them experts. They're fallible. They can make mistakes. The reasons they give are defeasible. But, on the whole, they are much better at doing what they do than a regular person at doing what they do. In many, more interesting cases, physics, philosophy, mathematics, all the expert can do is say, "hey trust me on this one, I'm right." And, in this case one should believe the expert rather than some other guy who disagrees but who seems to be able to offer you convincing reasons.

Convincingness is relative to how gullible or skeptical you are. There is no objective standard for convincingness. Likewise, there are no stateable objective standards for when some evidence is good enough and when not. But, it's not true that what's true is relative to how gullible or skeptical you are or how good or bad you find evidence.

xTYBALTx · 09-21-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

In many, more interesting cases, physics, philosophy, mathematics, all the expert can do is say, "hey trust me on this one, I'm right." And, in this case one should believe the expert rather than some other guy who disagrees but who seems to be able to offer you convincing reasons.

I completely disagree.

Look. Any snake oil salesman can make a convincing but false argument. And an expert may say 'just trust me on this one' and still be 100% correct despite the absence of evidence. But that doesn't mean you should believe someone based upon their expertise or credentials alone. That is foolish. If someone is truly an expert in their field, they should be able to summarize the ideas and touch on the main points in the space permitted by an encyclopedia article. Even a robust line of reason can be evidence. He can tell you that he carried out X study, and - if you are such a laborious person as to require this - you may look up his study in some journal hidden deep in the bowels of a university library and read it yourself.

But the point is that he's not simply saying 'trust me on this one.' He's saying 'I carried out X study, with y controls, assured that z did not contaminate my study...' He may say 'Association B approved of the controls in my study,' which is really just shorthand for 'I used controls f, g, h...' His intention in saying that Association B approved of his study isn't 'Lots of credible people agree with me,' but rather that Association B's requirements, which are well known and stringent and uniform, were adhered to in his study. The researcher in this case is not relying upon his credibility, he is relying upon reason.

**CingularDuality** · 09-21-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

You seem to misunderstand my position.

I was under the impression that your position in this argument is that experts (with credentials) don't lend credibility to an encyclopedia article.

**CingularDuality** · 09-21-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I completely disagree.

Look. Any snake oil salesman can make a convincing but false argument. And an expert may say 'just trust me on this one' and still be 100% correct despite the absence of evidence. But that doesn't mean you should believe someone based upon their expertise or credentials alone. That is foolish. If someone is truly an expert in their field, they should be able to summarize the ideas and touch on the main points in the space permitted by an encyclopedia article. Even a robust line of reason can be evidence. He can tell you that he carried out X study, and - if you are such a laborious person as to require this - you may look up his study in some journal hidden deep in the bowels of a university library and read it yourself.

But the point is that he's not simply saying 'trust me on this one.' He's saying 'I carried out X study, with y controls, assured that z did not contaminate my study...' He may say 'Association B approved of the controls in my study,' which is really just shorthand for 'I used controls f, g, h...' His intention in saying that Association B approved of his study isn't 'Lots of credible people agree with me,' but rather that Association B's requirements, which are well known and stringent and uniform, were adhered to in his study. The researcher in this case is not relying upon his credibility, he is relying upon reason.

No, regardless of the number of experiments he conducted, you weren't there to see them, so you're relying on his credibility. Believing some journal hidden deep in a University? Credibility again...

Be reasonable here.

xTYBALTx · 09-21-2006, 11:33 AM

Sure, someone can carry out a massive conspiracy to trick us, with phoney studies, fake journals, trumped up credentials and what not. What's your point? That we are susceptible to trickery? I don't see what that has to do with the discussion.

xTYBALTx · 09-21-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I was under the impression that your position in this argument is that experts (with credentials) don't lend credibility to an encyclopedia article.

Nope.

Steeler · 09-21-2006, 11:42 AM

I really don't know what we're arguing about anymore.

09-20-2006, 05:43 PM	#16 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: For those concerned about "Wikiality" 1. What's independant verification? What does independant verification have to do with this discussion? 2. In Wikipedia, evidence is frequently provided or referenced. 3. I don't need or want credibility when I have evidence. 4. I seek neither mass nor populist input when determining the veracity of a statement. Nor credentials. I don't seek balance. I seek evidence and reason. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

09-21-2006, 02:54 AM	#21 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: For those concerned about "Wikiality" I should only accept whether quarks exist or not based upon the evidence available. If Wikipedia doesn't provide evidence, you shouldn't believe it. If an expert doesn't provide evidence, you shouldn't believe him either. An expert has to make a convincing case that quarks exist just the same as the faceless thing that is Wikipedia must make a convincing case to the same effect. Don't mistake my position for excessive skepticism or as impractical. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

09-21-2006, 04:23 AM	#23 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: For those concerned about "Wikiality" My previous post was sufficient to answer all of your concerns. Read it again. Read the thread again. You seem to misunderstand my position. I'm done with this thread unless something new and exciting comes up. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

09-21-2006, 05:02 AM	#24 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,095	Re: For those concerned about "Wikiality" What does convincingness (for a reader) have to do with whether an encyclopedia article is accurate or not? An encyclopedia article is not an argument for something's being true. The point of an encylopedia is to concisely categorize what we take to be a common body of knowledge. Encyclpedias are reference books. They merely report, in some manner that's accessible to the general public, what it is that we, as a community, take to be true. Most of what you know comes in the form of people telling you something without much, if any, explicit evidence. You knew when you were a child where you were born. Your parents told you so. You didn't need to see your birth certificate. You didn't need to go to the hospital and check their records. You didn't need to hire a private detective to figure it out. No. The mere fact that it is true you were born there and that your parents did not try to decieve you and told you the truth is enough to justify your belief. You know that 19 people died in Afghanistan due to a car bomb the other day because the media reported it so. They did not provide evidence that it isn't a big hoax on the part of the media. They did not provide evidence of the bodies to your eyes with full autopsies. The mere fact that most contemporary media outlets are fairly reliable in their reports is justification enough for you to believe it. There's no formal logic to it. Now, maybe wikipedia goes beyond what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. I don't know. But the aim of the creator seemed to be to create an easily accessible encyclopedia that has an entry on almost everything. Back to convincingness. Something can be very convincing for you, even if the reasons given are completely crap. On the other hand, something can be totally unconvincing for you even though the reasons are very good. I spent about 10 minutes trying to convince my students that the set consisting of the even integers is the same size as the set consisting of all the integers. I then spend another 10 minutes trying to convince them that there are the same number of real numbers between zero and one as there are real numbers between negative infinity and positive infinity--that there are the same number of points on a line segment from 0 to 1 as there are on the entire line from negative infinity to infinity. I then spent sometiime trying to convince them that there are more real numbers than there are natural numbers. They just couldn't be convinced by reason. I can give them both mathematical proofs and geometric proofs. That's about as rigorous as you can get with reasoning and logic. But, they just couldn't grasp it. These were not convincing reasons to them. In the end, I had to just say, "look, trust me on this one. These reasons are good reasons." And, they are. Perhaps the most convincing them to them was that I said it and it seemed like I knew what I was talking about. Now, there are also bad reasons that can sound like good reasons. Take a look at the science of optics. Now, they have all sorts of principles about how light rays will reflect or refract in certain situations. It all sounds very plausible. If you shine a ray of light at a reflective surface at a 45o angle, it will reflect off at a 90o angle. You can give principles for why this is and such. Problem: there are no such things as rays of light. High school students show this in their physics classes when they do the double slit experiment. Principles about rays of light sound pretty darn reasonable. It's easy to convince someone that there are such things as rays of light and that they work in these ways. But, science tells us, there really are no such things as rays of light. These principles about rays of light are just false. They're convincing reasons for false propositions. Ok. Those are some examples from science. Now, for more ordinary matters, this are much worse. There is no formal standards of reasonableness when talking about evidence given for the majority of topics in wikipedia articles. That there's no formal standards doesn't mean some reasons aren't better than others. But, it makes it much harder for just anyone to tell. The experts in that field, however, seem to do it better, just because they are knowledgable about the field. The credentials are meant to be a sign that they are knowledgable about the field. They don't say that you must automatically believe whatever they say. Credentials lend considerable weight to what they say. Ok. So my basic problem with saying something like, "all I need is the evidence, I can weigh their reasonableness myself and come to conclusions myself, I don't need any expert to tell me what's true or not" is that most people just can't weigh the some of that evidence in a manner that's going to get them the right result. Whether that's because it's a specialized field and you don't have the tools to weigh the evidence or because you're just bad at reasoning and you don't even have any basic tools to weigh the evidence with. Experts are those that are supposed to have these tools. That's why we deem them experts. They're fallible. They can make mistakes. The reasons they give are defeasible. But, on the whole, they are much better at doing what they do than a regular person at doing what they do. In many, more interesting cases, physics, philosophy, mathematics, all the expert can do is say, "hey trust me on this one, I'm right." And, in this case one should believe the expert rather than some other guy who disagrees but who seems to be able to offer you convincing reasons. Convincingness is relative to how gullible or skeptical you are. There is no objective standard for convincingness. Likewise, there are no stateable objective standards for when some evidence is good enough and when not. But, it's not true that what's true is relative to how gullible or skeptical you are or how good or bad you find evidence. __________________

09-21-2006, 11:33 AM	#28 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: For those concerned about "Wikiality" Sure, someone can carry out a massive conspiracy to trick us, with phoney studies, fake journals, trumped up credentials and what not. What's your point? That we are susceptible to trickery? I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

09-21-2006, 11:42 AM	#30 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: For those concerned about "Wikiality" I really don't know what we're arguing about anymore. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone concerned with the election itself?	IceCold	The Sandbox	22	10-28-2004 08:24 AM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links