| Basic Logic & the 4-Card Problem & Questions |
 |
| Homepage |
| Consider my variation of Wason's "four card" problem. This is a very simple problem that illustrates how we think. Problem 1: You have four cards in front of you as you see below. Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. Rule #1 states: "If a card has a "D" on one side, then it will have a "3" on the other side". Question 1. Which cards and only which cards need to be turned over in order to verify rule #1? (See link at bottom of page for answers). |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| This is a very simple problem, but unfortunately it seems very difficult for most people to get correct. The typical result is that approximately 7% of the testers get the correct answer. Some people still don't get it even after it is explained to them thoroughly. The problem is confirmation bias. We search for ways to confirm what we think instead of looking for ways to show that our thinking is wrong. In other words, we tend to think illogically. This means that when a theist has 'bought into his or her beliefs', then they will tend to pay attention to the 'clues' that tend to confirm their preconceptions and tend to downplay refuting evidence. This is complicated even more by what is called the "Jean Dixon Effect". Jean Dixon was a famous "psychic" who popularized the technique of tossing out a myriad of claims about a subject and the 'visions' that proved to be true ad hoc, the subject tended to attribute great significance to and the 'visions' that didn't apply just blurred past as noise. We are significance and pattern finders. When the 'blur' of errors are ignored and the 'hits' are given greater significance than they deserve then people become impressed that Ms. Dixon or any other "psychic" has impressive powers. This tells us something about how we think. (Badly in most cases). Problem 2: Now consider the same problem with the inclusion of rule #2 and with the additional truth that rule #1 & rule #2 are mutually exclusive (that is, they cannot both be true at the same time). Rule #2, "If a card has "K" on one side, then it will have a "3" on the other side." Question 2. Which cards and only which cards do you need to turn over to verify rule #1 & rule #2? Question 3: If you turned over card "3" only and you find a "K", would this refute rule #1? Question 4: If you turned over the "D" and found a "3" and turned over the "3" and found a "D", would this refute rule #2? Question 5: How many rules can be refuted at any given instance? Question 6: If rule #1 is refuted, does this mean that rule #2 is true? Question 7: If a rule is shown in two ways to be true and in one way to be false, what does this mean regarding that rule? Question 8: By simply seeing the upside face of the "3" card (and not knowing what is on the other side), what does this tell us about rules 1 & 2? Question 9: What does the "3" card metaphorically correspond to? Question 10: What does the "7" represent? The "4-card problem" is deductive because it is a closed set, but most considerations in the 'real world' are inductive open sets. What if this problem was the "perhaps unlimited number of cards" problem? Question 11: How would this (open set) condition affect the problems we are considering? How would it affect the meaning of "D", "K", "3" & "7"? Question 12: How does this logically relate to considerations of abiogenesis & creationism/ID? What if abiogenesis was "D" and creationism/ID was "K"? Question 13: What does the above results tell us about ID "complexity" or "fine turned universe" arguments or creationism "evidence" by Paul's method of looking around and seeing the "complex" world? GO HERE FOR ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS!! The Dhampire LOGOS |