Philosophical Tests

[RedAnarchist]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/


These are different activities that you can do. I tried them a while back and some of them are quite interesting. I was wondering what the more philosophically-minded members of the forum thought of them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I won't comment, since my view of this useless branch of 'knowledge' is well-known -- but if you like wasting your time, this looks like a good way to do it. :P

[Dr.Pepper]

Cool, some of these are pretty humorous.

[JazzRemington]

We took the logic test in my Cognitive Psychology class. We did it to illustrate the point that people aren't good at using Formal Logic...even when trained in it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaz -- presumably that observation applies to those setting and then marking the test -- which, of course, makes any conclusions drawn valueless... :o

[Moral: psychologists should never pick fights with us logicians. :P ]

[Dr.Pepper]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 08:19 pm
Jaz -- presumably that observation applies to those setting and then marking the test -- which, of course, makes any conclusions drawn valueless... :o

[Moral: psychologists should never pick fights with us logicians. :P ]
Presumably.

[dty06]

i actually got the logic test correct (all 4 questions). I suppose I'm more logical than I thought...i consider myself to be insane

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

well, My experience of 'logic' tests handed out by psychologists is that they are really informal reasoning questionaires (or informal tests about our intuitions about probability).

Was that the case here?

No one, I suppose, was asked, for example, to set up a conjunctive normal form, or show that first order logic was complete -- now that would have been a test.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 03:19 pm
Jaz -- presumably that observation applies to those setting and then marking the test -- which, of course, makes any conclusions drawn valueless... :o

[Moral: psychologists should never pick fights with us logicians. :P ]
I think you misunderstand (if I understand you that is :P). The point was that people by default don't normally use formal logic in their reasoning for any variety of reasons (lack of time, for one). Even people who are trained in formal logic don't use it sometimes.

That's not to say that people can't learn and be very good at it, it's just that unless they are trained to use it within the context of a practical situation (maybe through experience or training), they don't seem to be able to make the connection between what the formal logic form of a particular problem is and how said form is represented in the situation. Basically, it's like they are fixated on the superficial differences and cnanot see the underlying similarities. It's applying it that is the problem.

People can be very good at using formal logic if they can make such a connection and have time to use it.

[dty06]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 01:38 am
well, My experience of 'logic' tests handed out by psychologists is that they are really informal reasoning tests (or informl tests about our intuitions about probability).

Was that the case here?

No one, I suppose, was asked, for example, to set up a conjunctive normal form, or show that first order logic was complete -- now that would have been a
test.
the test is very simple in design. It gives you a scenario, and then some two-sided "cards" (only one side is shown). Then it asks you to select which "cards" need to be turned over (to see the information on the back) to answer the question. For instance, one question was something along the lines of "You have been hired to check these cards for consistency. each card has a letter and a number. The cards with "s" on them should have "3" on the other side."

something like that. you need to choose only the ones that you would need to answer, and no more (or less).

so yeah. Take the test, because according to that site, 75-80% get at least one wrong.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 01:38 am
well, My experience of 'logic' tests handed out by psychologists is that they are really informal reasoning tests (or informl tests about our intuitions about probability).

Was that the case here?

No one, I suppose, was asked, for example, to set up a conjunctive normal form, or show that first order logic was complete -- now that would have been a
test.
No. It is a test to see if you understand implication, and are able to apply it to practical situations.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaz:


I think you misunderstand (if I understand you that is ). The point was that people by default don't normally use formal logic in their reasoning for any variety of reasons (lack of time, for one). Even people who are trained in formal logic don't use it sometimes.

Well, Formal logic is really only of use in mathematics, computing and the sciences -- it is useless when it come to everyday reasoning; that is why logicians do not use it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

dty06:


the test is very simple in design. It gives you a scenario, and then some two-sided "cards" (only one side is shown). Then it asks you to select which "cards" need to be turned over (to see the information on the back) to answer the question. For instance, one question was something along the lines of "You have been hired to check these cards for consistency. each card has a letter and a number. The cards with "s" on them should have "3" on the other side."

As I thought, a test of informal reasoning about probabilities.

LH:


It is a test to see if you understand implication, and are able to apply it to practical situations.

As I said, a test of informal reasoning.

[Coprolal1an]

Those tests were kind of funny..

On the first, do-it-yourself deity, I got a plausibility factor of 1.0 (completely free/personal god).

On the taboo quiz, I got
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Then I took the 'battleground god' test, and this bullshit came up



You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

[Everyday Anarchy]

I made it through Battleground God with minimal damage. Got the "Award of Distinction" or something like that.