Chapter 5 - Evidence - Section Questions

If E is more likely given H than given ~H, then... -E is independent of H, and learning E should not change our confidence in H -E is evidence against H, and learning E should make us less confident in H -E is evidence for H, and learning E should make us more confident in H -We must apply the strength test before we know whether we should change our confidence in H at all

E is evidence for H, and learning E should make us more confident in H

In the story about the net with the hole in it, -The fisherman was subject to the serial position effect, because of the order with which he pulled fish out of the water -The fisherman was subject to a survivor bias, because he killed the fish and ate them -The fisherman was subject to a survivor bias, because he killed the fish and ate them -The fisherman initially got evidence that there were fewer tiny fish in the lake this season, but he later realized his evidence was unreliable

The fisherman initially got evidence that there were fewer tiny fish in the lake this season, but he later realized his evidence was unreliable

Selective noticing is when we notice... -confirming instances more than disconfirming instances of a hypothesis, and it only applies to our pre-existing views -confirming instances more than disconfirming instances of a hypothesis we've heard of, whether or not it is a pre-existing view -disconfirming instances more than confirming instances of a hypothesis, and it only applies to our pre-existing views -disconfirming instances more than confirming instances of a hypothesis we've heard of, whether or not it is a pre-existing view

confirming instances more than disconfirming instances of a hypothesis we've heard of, whether or not it is a pre-existing view

The strength test... -doesn't tell us exactly what our confidence in H should be after learning E, unless P( E | ~H ) is zero. -tells us how strong the evidence is for H, and how confident we should be in H after learning E -tells us the strength factor of the evidence, which is how many times more confident in H we should be after learning E -tells us what value we should assign to P ( E | H )

doesn't tell us exactly what our confidence in H should be after learning E, unless P( E | ~H ) is zero.

Aside from great memes, on social media we should expect to encounter... (to get the point you must choose both correct answers) convincing arguments supporting claims opposed to our own unconvincing arguments supporting claims we agree with especially unconvincing arguments supporting claims opposed to our own especially convincing arguments supporting claims we agree with

especially unconvincing arguments supporting claims opposed to our own especially convincing arguments supporting claims we agree with

Due to the file-drawer effect and research publication bias... research with surprising results is more likely to become available to us than research with unsurprising results we are more likely to remember when we read surprising research than when we read an unsurprising research research with surprising results should not be treated as providing any evidence for those results research with surprising results is published even though it does not meet professional standards

research with surprising results is more likely to become available to us than research with unsurprising results

The example about patients who had an extended version of an uncomfortable procedure was used to illustrate... -that we are more likely to remember a procedure the longer it takes -that we selectively notice experiences that confirm our expectations—for example, that the extended procedure is uncomfortable -that our impression of the last part of an extended event has an outsized influence on our impression of the whole event -that the ease with which we remember events is influenced by how the question was framed: for instance, how unpleasant was the extended procedure?

that our impression of the last part of an extended event has an outsized influence on our impression of the whole event

The point of the example about the World War II bombers was to illustrate... -that without seeing all the bombers, including the ones that did not survive, there was no evidence about the best place to put armor -that the distribution of bullet holes on surviving bombers was subject to a selection effect -that the officer's memories were selective because they failed to recall the locations of all the bullet holes -that the officers had been engaging in a risky strategy with the bombers that was unlikely to lead to success

that the distribution of bullet holes on surviving bombers was subject to a selection effect

In the sense of "probability" used in this text... -only future events can have a probability between 0 and 1 -probability only applies to classes of events -there are no restrictions about what probabilities we can reasonably assign to things -the probability we assign to a claim is our degree of confidence in that claim

the probability we assign to a claim is our degree of confidence in that claim

In this section, the text discusses how System 1 has trouble grasping the true probability of being harmed by a threat reported in the news, for three reasons: (to get the point you must choose all three correct answers) the scary events we hear about have been selected from such a large pool of people our System 1 reacts more intensely to some threats than others even if they are equally harmful news outlets report inaccurate facts in support of whatever political agenda is most common among their viewers the coverage of threats is not proportional with the number of deaths they cause

the scary events we hear about have been selected from such a large pool of people our System 1 reacts more intensely to some threats than others even if they are equally harmful the coverage of threats is not proportional with the number of deaths they cause