tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post1745715803876154375..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: The Kitchen Test of ScienceAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-61121914852114350732012-07-30T17:06:30.317-04:002012-07-30T17:06:30.317-04:00Seems a little different.
In one, they use it and...Seems a little different.<br /><br />In one, they use it and therefore think they know how it works.<br /><br />In the other, they don't use it, and therefore think they know how it works.<br /><br />I'd be happy if they at least knew how to do their own job. On one of my school field trips, I asked an apple farmer how to farm apples, and got evasion and gobbledygook. To compare, I later asked the teacher how teaching works, and got the same. Subsequent tests have confirmed it.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-91097682921795317142012-07-30T16:46:05.866-04:002012-07-30T16:46:05.866-04:00“Before the subjects gained direct experience with...“Before the subjects gained direct experience with the new skill, they over-predicted their own performance.”<br /><br />This does comport with other related phenomenon, particularly the illusion of explanatory depth. [For example, ask the average person if they know (or if they can explain) how a toilet works. Such a ubiquitous device! Of course, it’s obvious! Everyone knows how a toilet works! But ask for the explanation and you’ll get gobbledygook.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com