LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the…
QUESTION TYPE: Flaw
CONCLUSION: The statisticians are wrong.
REASONING: Their plan would mean we would have fewer and fewer beliefs. But we need many beliefs to survive.
ANALYSIS: The argument assumes that the statisticians thought people should actually try their plan or that people could survive using their plans.
The statisticians didn’t say that. They just said their plan was “the surest way to increase the overall correctness” of one’s beliefs. The plan might kill you but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best way to be sure your beliefs are correct.
___________
- CORRECT. Likewise, I could say that the best way to get warm is to jump into a fire. You’ll be badly hurt, but that doesn’t change the fact that it would be very effective at making you warmer. The statisticians might be correct even though their idea will hurt you.
- The statisticians are very clear: accept no new beliefs.
- This is fine. But the statisticians would say that the surest way to make either set more correct would be to eliminate beliefs without adding any.
- The argument didn’t say we should accept beliefs that we know are false. The argument seemed to be saying that we should accept new beliefs that we think are true. If we only reject beliefs then eventually we won’t have enough.
- The argument didn’t say that beliefs have to be correct. But if one followed the statisticians’ plan then one would eventually get rid of all incorrect beliefs and be left with too small a number.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
I selected B because in rejecting any belief, you necessarily accept the negation of the belief. For example, if you believe that unicorns don’t exist, and then you are presented with a unicorn, you reject your previous belief, but necessarily now accept the belief that unicorns do exist. So you only changed your belief by getting rid of your old belief, and thus keep to the philosophy. Why is this worse than A?
There are two main problems with your reasoning for B.
First, the rule in the stimulus does not allow the acceptance of new beliefs. The stimulus explicitly says “If this were the only rule one followed.” Under that hypothetical, the only permitted change to the belief set is rejecting a belief when there is adequate evidence against it. So you have to options: keep a belief or remove a belief.
So in your unicorn example, if you previously believed unicorns don’t exist and you’re presented with decisive evidence, the rule only allows you to now reject that belief. It doesn’t allow you to add the new belief that unicorns do exist. After the change, you simply have one fewer belief.
This also matters because people do not have beliefs about everything. If you had no belief at all about whether unicorns exist, then even being shown a unicorn would not allow you to add a belief under the rule, since you can only reject or keep beliefs.
Whether this makes sense in the real world is a different story. I wouldn’t say that rejecting any belief necessarily always means you accept its negation. Say you believe unicorns don’t exist, and then you’re presented with enough evidence to reject that belief as you can no longer with surety say that unicorns don’t exist, but not quite enough that you’re convinced they do exist. So now you no longer have the belief they don’t exist but you haven’t adopted the negation. But yes, in some cases, you might reject a belief and then accept its negation. But the rule given in the stimulus doesn’t provide space for that, which is what we have to follow.
Second, and in my opinion bigger issue with B, is that it never addresses the conclusion’s claim about survival. The conclusion is not just about how belief sets change. It says the statisticians’ claim “must be mistaken” because, under the rule, we would eventually have too few beliefs to survive. The argument therefore assumes, without support, that a rule for increasing the overall correctness of one’s beliefs must also be compatible with survival. Even if the conclusion had said “Since we need many beliefs to survive, we shouldn’t listen to the statistician.” (instead of saying the statistician is mistaken), the issue would still have been that there’s no basis to link correctness to survival.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
I really hope this is not a stupid question.
When I did this question, I initially went with B. (Sorry) I was between A and B but confused with A. In A the last sentence says “must not hinder one’s ability to survive” and I was thinking it should say must hinder…. I thought the person making the argument is saying the way the statisticians are telling us to increase our correctness will hinder our survival. So the word NOT was confusing me.
Then of course after I find out the answer; I notice reading between the lines would tell me I cannot accept new beliefs. I was assuming the argument was vulnerable because it doesn’t actually say you can not accept new beliefs. But I see it now. “Never change that set”
Can you explain why NOT should be there in A.
The issue here is that the person reporting the statisticians’ argument is making an added claim beyond the scope of that argument. The statisticians are just talking about ways to improve the overall correctness of one’s beliefs. The statisticians do not mention anything about whether or not this would be conducive to one’s survival, or if that’s even important. So, maybe the statisticians’ plan would not be conducive to survival, that does not necessarily suggest that it’s not the best way to improve the overall correctness of one’s beliefs. The author of the stimulus is saying:
The statistician’s plan would hinder survival
Therefore, the statisticians are mistaken.
So, the flaw is to presume that improving correctness must not hinder one’s ability to survive.
Graeme,
The question type for this explanation is wrong, this is a Flaw question from what I understand.
Also, isn’t (D) wrong simply because by following the statisticians’ plan you would not be able to accept any beliefs? The plan allows for only rejection or maintenance of your set of beliefs, not acceptance.
Yes, that’s correct, thanks for catching that. The page has been updated.
Remember, we’re not looking for what’s wrong with the statistician’s claim, we’re looking for the flaw in the author’s argument against the statisticians. So, we need to determine whether the author of the stimulus actually is doing what (D) says. The author isn’t saying we should accept just any belief (e.g. even when given against adequate it). The author is only saying that the statistician’s claim would lead to an undesirable set of circumstances, so we must follow some rule other than just that one of the statisticians.