Neovenator
18 hours ago
permalink
An act is wrong just when such acts are disallowed by some principle that is optimific, uniquely universally willable, and not reasonably rejectable. »How to Be Good - The New Yorker
1 day ago
permalink
This Cinderella status contributes to the fact that evidence-based psychological treatments, such as CBT, IPT, behaviour therapy and family therapy, have not yet fully benefitted from the range of dramatic advances in the neuroscience related to emotion, behaviour and cognition. Meanwhile, much of neuroscience is unaware of the potential of psychological treatments. »Psychological treatments: A call for mental-health science : Nature News & Comment
1 month ago
permalink
1 month ago
permalink
But Turing had no way of knowing that human conversation — or the appearance of it — could be simulated by natural language processing (NLP) software and the rise of chatterbots. Yes, these programs exhibit intelligence — but they’re intelligent in the same way that calculators are intelligent. Which isn’t really very intelligent at all. More crucially, the introduction of these programs to Turing Test competitions fail to answer the ultimate question posed by the test: Can machines think? »Why The Turing Test Is Bullshit
2 months ago
permalink
Apple was in Seoul to take depositions in the Samsung case, and they read about the standoff. From what they heard, one of the Samsung employees there had even swallowed documents before the investigators were allowed in. »The Great Smartphone War: Apple vs. Samsung
3 months ago
permalink
It’s natural for us to reduce the complexity of our rationality into convenient bite-sized ideas. As the trader turned epistemologist Nassim Taleb says: “We humans, facing limits of knowledge, and things we do not observe, the unseen and the unknown, resolve the tension by squeezing life and the world into crisp commoditized ideas.” But readers of popular psychology books on rationality must recognize that there’s a lot they don’t know, and they must be beware of how seductive stories are. The popular literature on cognitive biases is enlightening, but let’s be irrational about irrationality; exposure to X is not knowledge and control of X. Reading about cognitive biases, after all, does not free anybody from their nasty epistemological pitfalls. »The Irrationality of Irrationality: The Paradox of Popular Psychology | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
4 months ago
permalink
Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. As shown above, the post-study probability that a finding is true (PPV) depends a lot on the pre-study odds (R). Thus, research findings are more likely true in confirmatory designs, such as large phase III randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses thereof, than in hypothesis-generating experiments. Fields considered highly informative and creative given the wealth of the assembled and tested information, such as microarrays and other high-throughput discovery-oriented research [4,8,17], should have extremely low PPV. »PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Background from: FunkMonk Designed by:Doinwork