Hacker News Reader

Comment by theoh | Hacker News Reader

She probably does know about cognitive bias, but you can't seriously be suggesting that her bio establishes that with certainty. People who write and set up organizations are a very mixed bunch. Galef is not exactly a high-powered scientist or philosopher.

"Motivated reasoning" has it's own Wikipedia page: it's fine to talk about it as something distinct from cognitive bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

View on HN

She's not herself a high-powered scientist or philosopher, but she does spend a lot of time around them. For some time her co-host on her podcast was Massimo Pigliucci, a philosophy professor of some moderate note, and whose PhD is in biology. A great many genuine scientists and philosophers are guests.

That association does not in itself, of course, give her any accreditation, but she's widely regarded as somebody who takes the philosophy of science seriously, including by organizations like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP).

Having heard her speak many times on her podcast, I'd say she's not the greatest interviewer or the most insightful thinker. But she is more than competent in the domain.

"Motivated reasoning" is the product of confirmation bias. That's where the distinction ends.

No. If anything confirmation bias is a consequence of one particular case of motivated reasoning.

I think you will need to make a much stronger case if you want to convince anyone that this distinction is not useful (and that, therefore, the dismissive comment I initially replied to was justified.)

I'll let you make my case: Do you make a decision before or after you gather and interpret information?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com