SpokenTruth said:
This is twice you've proven that you don't fully grasp what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. I'll explain it in math terms. Imagine a given subject has 100 units of data to possibly know. Those on the lower end of the D-K scale who know 5 units of data but are unaware the remaining 95 exist would inaccurately claim their percentage of overall knowledge on that subject is higher than it truly it. These people often presume there is only 20 units, for example, and would therefore claim they know 25% of all there is to know on the topic when in fact it's just 5%. On the other end of the D-K effect, those who know 20 units of data and are aware there is still much more to learn will often claim they know 10% of the topic despite actually knowing 20%. It's a measure of how much they believe that their knowledge comprises all there is to know. Or, better stated, the meta-cognition of personal knowledge. And yes, it makes a sound. Sound is the mechanical oscillation of pressure waves through a medium and exists irrespective of a receptive audience. |
I feel like that analogy could be improved a bit. It doesn't capture that the more you understand the data, the more you understand the amount that you've yet to understand. I would say it's more like a maze with an unknown number of rooms (it's 100, but people at the start don't know that) and from the entrance you can see 5 of them and don't even know it's a maze yet, so from the entrance you think you can guess the basic path to the other side, you think it's just a simple path. Only when you actually walk to the 5th visible room do you actually see there are tons of branching paths, and realize there's probably upwards of 50 and it'll be quite a task to find your way to the other side.
As for the tree in a forest question, it depends on how you understand the word sound in that context. If a tree falls in the forest, obviously it makes sound waves, but without an observer, there is no phenomenological sound. In the latter sense of the word sound, it's a similar question to "is your red the same as my red?" in that it speaks of the hearing experience of something, not the physical manifestation that brings about that experience. When we say that something "made a sound" we don't generally mean that sound waves were emitted from it, we mean the actual experience of that sound when we hear it. Sound is not the mechanical oscillation of pressure waves through a medium. Sound is experienced by the mind, because of mechanical oscillations of pressure waves happening to hit our eardrum. As such, those mechanical oscillations would exist irrespective of an observer, but the sound would not. If you wish to have a discussion about phenomenology, however, I think it would be best to take it to PMs, before we're accused of being off topic in the politics thread.