Comments on John Mashey's Pal Review and Skeptical Science (Part 2)

Lessons of the Ice Cube / Puddle of Water Fallacy 

This is another concept from Taleb's "The Black Swan" TheBlackSwan , although I doubt that is the original source of this concept. However, this a very useful concept. Essentially, when you're looking at an outcome, such as a puddle of water that you think came from ice cubes, it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to reverse engineer how many ice cubes it took to create the puddle. What size where they? Were they all the same size? How were they arranged? And, even if you know all of that, is there no other arrangement of ice cubes that might create the same size and shape of puddle?

In the debate with the Skeptical Science gang, they seem to seize on outcome-oriented statements and then make inferences about how that outcome came to be. Here's an example. At one point Rufus9 said something like "I read books and blogs" (in answer to how I came up with my point of view and where some of my "facts" came from.) In response, various parties said the following:

• I'd say blogs and books "from both sides" of any debate aren't much use. 
• You really get your information from blogs and mainstream books by unqualified authors? That's where you put the weight of your faith, or from where you expect to gain a reliable understanding?
• You overstate your case -- a usual denial tactic,
• But in the end your stance is vacuous

So all of those statements are looking at the puddle (which is really my skepticism of the validity of the claims of the global warming scientists and distrust of the peer review process), and inferring that there is some flaw in the way that I reached my conclusions.  "Oh, I see, I know people like you and I know why they have such wrong opinions."  Keep in mind that the sum total of my comments might have covered one type-written page, so we're definitely looking at a small puddle, and that makes the ICPWF situation worse.


Another way of looking at this is that it is extremely easy to take a judgmental position.  We are very good at judging, and we tend to fall for the ICPWF quite easily.  It is much easier to attack a conclusion or outcome than it is to develop an appreciation of why a person might have a certain opinion.  


For a greater understanding of our judgmental nature, I recommend reading BOOKS (or listening to podcasts) by Jack Kornfield - a Buddhist monk.  One of the best lines I can remember from him (and I don't remember the exact source) is where he is talking about our judgmental nature and counting the number of times he has made a judgment.  "... 23, 24, 25,... oh look there's another one..."  And, in another part he says "... our brains have no pride, they are like pasta machines constantly streaming ideas..."   The overall point is that we should be mindful of our judgmental nature and exercise caution when jumping to conclusions.  


About Jack Kornfield


Jack Kornfield podcasts from Zencast