4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 5,681
I don't know the author, but beware of epistemic trespassing (informally termed Nobelitis).
It is established that high intelligence enables advanced rationalization, motivation-driven reasoning, and identity-protective bias rather than absolute objectivity. I have no reason to think the author is being anything less than honest on his own terms. It just seems an odd set of beliefs.
Concerning his biography: I feel it germaine to point out that Cambridge isn't A university. There are 31 collages (and Oxbridge graduates almost always specify their alma mater as it MATTERS) and he carefully employs the term 'went to work for' the same unnamed institution for 17 years. But that isn't the same as stating a role. A research assistant, archivist, lab technician or even a cleaner for that matter could make just the same claim.
So while not lying, it does strike me as misleading.
The Forer test revealed that the vast majority of people are more likely to believe something is true if it makes them feel good so I'm not for a moment suggesting his books are bad literature or that investigation is ever a bad thing in itself.
But skepticism is the only rational starting-point. Hitchen's Razor reminds us that the onus is on the person stating a case to provide evidence. There is no onus on anyone else to DISprove a case. I was just a little bit disappointed to find such a seemingly clumsy appeal to authority within a very brief biography.
It is established that high intelligence enables advanced rationalization, motivation-driven reasoning, and identity-protective bias rather than absolute objectivity. I have no reason to think the author is being anything less than honest on his own terms. It just seems an odd set of beliefs.
Concerning his biography: I feel it germaine to point out that Cambridge isn't A university. There are 31 collages (and Oxbridge graduates almost always specify their alma mater as it MATTERS) and he carefully employs the term 'went to work for' the same unnamed institution for 17 years. But that isn't the same as stating a role. A research assistant, archivist, lab technician or even a cleaner for that matter could make just the same claim.
So while not lying, it does strike me as misleading.
The Forer test revealed that the vast majority of people are more likely to believe something is true if it makes them feel good so I'm not for a moment suggesting his books are bad literature or that investigation is ever a bad thing in itself.
But skepticism is the only rational starting-point. Hitchen's Razor reminds us that the onus is on the person stating a case to provide evidence. There is no onus on anyone else to DISprove a case. I was just a little bit disappointed to find such a seemingly clumsy appeal to authority within a very brief biography.
Last edited:
