I think it’s sus that a Math Lecturer decides to post an article about philosophy and then doesn’t describe any of the steps he took. The article basically just says i did a thing, but doesnt explain what he did/how to reproduce the result… On the other hand, philosophy is a field with many wrong conclusions and the like, so it is believable. But again in my eyes it’s not proven, since it’s just ‘one guy’ saying something and not replicated nor reproduced.
Comment on Dunning-Kruger
LongLive@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I hope this criticism is valid :
realclearscience.com/…/debunking_the_dunning-krug…!
and
realclearscience.com/…/debunking_the_dunning-krug…!
…
There is a “people think they are better than average” rule, rather than whatever Dunning-Kreuger suggested.
Tibi@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Error: url1 and url2 are the sameLongLive@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Thank you, I made amends.