Posted by Tom Moertel
Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:30:00 GMT
I love inspecting errata, those lists of corrections and desired changes that authors compile for their books, hoping that someday their books will be sent back to the presses and the changes can be worked in.
For many technical books, the errata are mostly boring fixes for publishing errors. Sometimes, however, you can see that the author’s thinking has evolved, and then errata-sleuthing becomes fun. The errata list becomes a kind of “brain diff” for the author’s thoughts. It’s not often that someone can tell you with such precision how their thinking has evolved on important subjects.
By studying these diffs, you can learn something about the way their creators think. Similarly, Seth Roberts wrote on his blog that he learned something about writing and editing by comparing New Yorker articles to the slightly different versions published elsewhere; the New Yorker versions were better, and the differences between the versions explained why they were better. It’s like getting free writing lessons from The New Yorker.
A recent example of errata-sleuting: The errata for Judea Pearl’s Causality are fascinating. Causality research is a rapidly advancing field, and it’s interesting to see, through edits to his two-year-old book, which new developments one of the pioneers of the field thinks are worth working into the text. For instance: the addition of the Mediation Formula to the discussion of indirect effects. There are also many new citations to recent research and a few helpful clarifications. I also like (and am slightly amused) that he’s sharpened some of the poking-sticks he’s using to gently prod reluctant researchers, clinging to traditional methods, toward the advantages of modern causality theory: “some statisticians” has become “traditional statisticians”; a potential-outcomes “fallacy” now has “damaging consequences.” Good stuff.
The next time you’re working through an interesting textbook, see if you can find errata for it, even if you have the most-recent printing. You might learn something unexpected, and for very little cost.
Posted in fun stuff
Tags causality, errata, hacks, learning, sleuthing
no comments
no trackbacks
Posted by Tom Moertel
Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:23:00 GMT
Recently, Reg Braithwaite wrote about the ad hominem
fallacy. His
article reminded me that debating – the art and science of
constructing sound arguments in the face of opposition – is a valuable
skill.
Though many online debates devolve into name calling and other
foolishness, most are rich opportunities to learn – if learning is
your goal. So make learning your goal.
Look at each debate you enter as a chance to discover something new.
When you participate, assume the other participants are good people,
who deserve an honest argument from you. If you learn the
fundamentals of logic and clear thinking, it’s easy to stay in the
debate, contribute, and increase your (and their) chances to learn.
Many people, however, overlook the opportunity to learn in order to
pursue the opportunity to win. What a mistake. If the price of
winning is ignorance, can you afford the purchase?
Therefore, when I debate, I make considerable efforts to be rational
and reasonable. Even so, it’s hard not to say the wrong thing when
a debate gets heated. To help keep me in the right frame of mind,
I use a simple, idealized debating model.
I wrote about this model six years ago on Kuro5hin, but it’s worth
revisiting. The model is not magic, and I doubt it’s
novel, but it has helped me. Maybe it can help you, too.
Here it is:
- The motivation for debating is to arrive at a better understanding of reality (i.e., the truth).
- All participants share this motivation.
- All participants are intelligent, rational human beings, each fully capable of drawing logical conclusions from facts.
- The reason for disagreements is not because participants want to disagree but rather because their understandings of the facts differ.
- Therefore, the objective of debating is to share information until the participants can bring their understandings of the facts into alignment, which will allow for agreement or at least consensus.
I know that the model and reality part ways at the outset. When I
debate, however, I pretend the model is reality. I do this is
because it allows me to participate earnestly. Forcing myself to make
meaningful contributions increases the chance that debates will end
in somebody learning something useful.
Nevertheless, debates often go wrong. That’s the second reason I use
the model. It gives me something to compare real debates with so that
problems are easy to spot and classify. If a key participant in a
debate makes personal attacks or refuses to accept demonstrated facts,
for example, the problem is easy to see and classify: It is a debate
killer. Time to move on.
Another tool that has helped me stay on track is D. Q. McInerny’s
wonderful introduction to logic, Being Logical: A Guide to Good
Thinking.
This short book, inspired by Strunk and White’s classic, tiny text on
writing, The Elements of
Style,
introduces the foundations of logic, explains how to construct sound
arguments, and prepares you to recognize and avoid illogical thinking
(fallacies). The book is a pleasure to read and makes a handy reference (I
keep mine within arm’s reach). If you need a quick refresher on clear
thinking, add this delightful book to your toolbox.
Don’t forget: Every debate is an opportunity to learn. So when
debating, make learning your goal. And if you learn to debate, you
will have an easier time debating and learning.
Debate to learn. Learn to debate.
Posted in interesting stuff
Tags arguments, debating, learning, life, logic, people, thinking
4 comments
no trackbacks
