China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Re-examination of Traditional Statistics
Published in Chong Ho Alex Yu, Data Mining and Exploration, 2022
It is important to point out that the calculations of P(H I D) and P(D I H) can yield vastly different results. Sober (2000) used the following example to illustrate the difference: “There are gremlins in the attic, and they make noise.” It means that if there actually were gremlins in the attic, we would expect to hear noise. In this case, P(D 1H) is very high. However, if we hear noise in the attic and guess that the noise is from gremlins, this case is P(H1D). This probability is not high at all because the noise could be from something else. Indeed, the underlying logic of hypothesis testing is subject to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The logic form of P(D1H) is: If Hypothesis (H) is correct, it implies that we could observe data (If H then D)D is observed or D is highly probable.Hence, H is correct.
Heaven Can't Wait: A Critique of Current Planetary Defence Policy
Published in Jai Galliott, Commercial Space Exploration, 2016
A distinct error of reasoning that bears on the impact threat is the formal fallacy of improper transposition. A pessimist might cite a famous assertion by Socrates as an example. For when the snub-nosed sage proclaimed that the unexamined life is not worth living, it is commonly assumed that he meant to be making the much stronger claim that the examined life is worth living. This, however, would not follow. The mistake is to take a necessary condition (for life to be worthwhile, it must involve critical reflection) as a sufficient condition (habitually engaging in critical reflection will make life worthwhile). But, even granting the truth of the premise (that reflection is needed for the good life), additional conditions may need to be met before a life could be deemed a good one, for example that you have friends.
The Human Element
Published in Joseph Eli Kasser, Systemic and Systematic Project Management, 2019
‘The ways in which people are paid, the measures by which their performance is evaluated, and so forth – are the primary shapers of employees’ values and beliefs’ (Hammer and Champy 1993: p. 75). Winning (world-class) organizations need to focus on individual excellence and reward individuals for their achievements and the risks that they are willing to take (Harrington 2000). According to Henry Ford, ‘If an employer urges men to do their best, and the men learn after a while that their best does not bring any reward, then they naturally drop back into “getting by”’ (Ford and Crowther 1922: p. 117).2 Yet performance evaluations were discouraged (Deming 1986) for many reasons including: Measurements are subjective: subjective measurements demoralize people so don’t bother to make such measurements. If indeed measurements are subjective, then the search should be started for objective measurements.Measurements are made based on arbitrary goals: since the goals are arbitrary, they may not be achievable or desired by the employee. The goals should be set in a participative manner with the employee contributing, understanding the need for and taking ownership of the goals. They will then cease to be arbitrary.The system is at fault and people’s performance cannot improve within the boundaries of the system: Deming’s ‘Red Bead Experiment’ is often quoted to reinforce this interpretation (Deming 1986). However, Deming’s comments about changing the system have been conveniently forgotten.Half the people will always be performing below average: is a shield for poor performance. The fallacy in the argument is the definition of average. Since the average in one organization can be better or worse than the average in another organization, there is no reason why the average of an organization cannot be raised.
Two analogy strategies: the cases of mind metaphors and introspection
Published in Connection Science, 2018
We have reconstructed the analogical reasoning involved in interpreting ordinary metaphorical talk of “minds” (Section 5) and in generating introspective philosophical conceptions of the mind (Section 6), respectively. Their comparative analysis allows us to expose seductive fallacies in the philosophical reasoning reconstructed. Analogical reasoning is governed by openly heuristic rules. Whereas normative rules determine or constrain what is correct, right or reasonable, heuristics are rules of thumb which yield reasonably accurate judgments in most relevant contexts, without constraining what is to count as correct. Such rules are never guaranteed to preserve truth. In talk about heuristic reasoning, the label “fallacy” therefore tends to be reserved for cases where application of the relevant rules predictably leads from true premises or accurate information to conclusions or intuitive judgments that violate normative rules – think, for example, of the “conjunction fallacy” which arises from the use of the representativeness heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983).