tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9041664.post5134932891754867061..comments2018-12-20T19:19:18.005-07:00Comments on Magic Tony's Grand Delusions: On Coincidental ThinkingMagic Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01218502680044614195noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9041664.post-54286058860690803062009-05-19T09:30:00.000-07:002009-05-19T09:30:00.000-07:00Hi Reed. Thanks for the comment. You make an int...Hi Reed. Thanks for the comment. You make an interesting point. I think it was Dawkins who equated acceptance of Type I and II errors to superstition and ignorance, respectively. It's definitely the case that our thresholds for acceptance and rejection of new information are very much based on our worldviews (whether we're skeptics or believers). We set high thresholds (or low alpha levels) for information that doesn't jive with our worldview...so it takes much stronger evidence for us to accept it as anything other than a false positive. Regarding Type II errors, we are rarely concerned with critically examining information that fits within our worldview, so we set our threshold very low, accepting almost all evidence regardless of its strength. Unfortunately, this seems to be an inescapable tendency of humanity.Magic Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01218502680044614195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9041664.post-88587639814938201362009-05-18T23:45:00.000-07:002009-05-18T23:45:00.000-07:00Fascinating. Even as a computer professional and a...Fascinating. Even as a computer professional and a skeptic, I find that when it comes to probability, I must occasionally fight my biases and deal with situations that are counter intuitive.<br /><br />I wonder how this relates to how skeptics and believers approach Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives)? As a rough generalization, skeptics are more concerned about the former and believers the latter.Reed Ehttp://barcamp.org/SkeptiCampnoreply@blogger.com