In this post of last July I considered the question
of why we find theories (or agents) that make successful predictions more believable than those that
work as retrospective sense making structures. I've now released this post as a PDF. It can be accessed and downloaded from here or from the side bar.
.
We should disbelieve those like Harold Camping (left) whose predictions fail. Camping's predictions fell over more than once. The Watchtower's (Jehovah's Witnesses) predictions have failed many times; 1975 was just one of them. But people continue to believe these agents, so it seems that factors are at work other than a simple mathematical heuristic.
Hands on predictions are risky: But we tend to believe those predictive agents that get it right.
.
We should disbelieve those like Harold Camping (left) whose predictions fail. Camping's predictions fell over more than once. The Watchtower's (Jehovah's Witnesses) predictions have failed many times; 1975 was just one of them. But people continue to believe these agents, so it seems that factors are at work other than a simple mathematical heuristic.
No comments:
Post a Comment