Jump to content

Conjunction fallacy: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

28 June 2024

27 June 2024

  • curprev 17:2617:26, 27 June 2024TopScholarNZHistory1993 talk contribs 20,703 bytes +1,748 I pointed out that the hypothetical actually asks readers to make an assessment different to the one they are accustomed to. Normally they would think they have to assess probability identity matches description. The question is tricky though because it actually asks them to assess probability information matches description. Frankly it's a deceptive question but I tried to keep the tone neutral and just point out the an intervening information layer has been inserted. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit

26 June 2024

23 June 2024

22 June 2024

10 May 2024

2 May 2024

29 March 2024

28 February 2024

27 September 2023

24 September 2023

23 September 2023

1 September 2023

14 August 2023

8 August 2023

20 April 2023

16 March 2023

23 January 2023

4 January 2023

14 September 2022

28 June 2022

  • curprev 21:1921:19, 28 June 2022Mucketymuck talk contribs 18,346 bytes +121 Contrast of “specific conditions” to “a single general one” eliminated, since such “specific conditions” here include the “general one.” Also, the word “conditions” withdrawn from referring to the conclusion of the illogical construct, in keeping with standard formal usage of that term in math and logic (as in “conditional statement”). It seems redundant to call a set conjoint, but doing so helps clarify the term “conjunction fallacy.” Other changes made for comprehensibility or formal grammar. undo

24 April 2022

8 March 2022

7 March 2022

26 November 2021

25 June 2021

14 June 2021

7 May 2021

6 May 2021

16 April 2021

11 April 2021

  • curprev 19:5919:59, 11 April 2021Deuteroscopy talk contribs 18,362 bytes −64 Never seen it called "Huang’s theory of conditions" and I have read most of the papers that have ever been published on the conjunction fallacy. I am very confident this is vandalism. Unless someone can find a citation, this needs to be struck. undo

7 April 2021

25 January 2021

2 January 2021

26 December 2020

14 December 2020

11 December 2020

7 December 2020

2 December 2020

1 December 2020

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)