Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Geek Speak => Topic started by: Sally Le Page on 24/06/2021 14:43:47
-
Rachel asked:
"Can it be proved (or disproved) mathematically that pride really does come before a fall? This would really help me know if it's OK to be chuffed with myself on the odd occasion."
Do you have the answer?
-
Hi.
Establishing the rigorous mathematical truth (or falsehood) of your statement (pride comes before a fall) is not important. Yes, it probably could be done but you'd need to make everything in that statement more precise, establish the observations you need to make and the criteria you will use. The original meaning or purpose of the statement would almost certainly be lost. It's absolute truth is not important, it's useful just for the purpose of communication and interaction with other human beings. In my opinion, it's not even that useful and I wouldn't recommend you use the phrase unless you're writing a novel and really stuck for something to say that your audience can identify with.
-
Theoretically: Since a fall demolishes all forms of vanity, pride cannot exist immediately afterwards. However pride is a common state so it sometimes if not always comes before a fall.
Experimentally: I think Churchill observed that all political careers end in failure. Given his very wide experience of the subject and comprehensive historical writings we can take this as good experimental evidence of at least one embodiment of the principle.
"Post hoc sed non propter hoc" is a wise caution in all investigations. "Ante hoc sed non semper casus hoc" might be bad Latin but a good summary of the case.
-
Rachel asked:
"Can it be proved (or disproved) mathematically that pride really does come before a fall?
Do you have the answer?
Rachel
There are mathematical methods which can describe statements symbolically and hence help us to determine the logical truth of the statements. However, in the situation you describe the results of the maths are no different to using formal (eg Aristotelian) logic. The problem is how you translate the words into a logical formula.
For example, would it disprove the proverb if you found a situation where pride came after a fall? When I was at school, running in a race, I tripped and fell; automatically I curled up and rolled forward to come back on my feet and continued the race without a break. A fluke, yes, but I really did feel proud.
However, this is a classic example (which occurs in a lot of philosophical discussion) of the difference in the meaning of words. In my case the fall is physical rather than a fall of status as implied in the proverb; also pride is used as a justifiable feeling of achievement rather than a false sense of self importance.
The other question you could ask is whether the proverb is suggesting a causative effect linking pride and a fall. Alan’s mention of political figures suggests to us that most politicians have a self-view of inflated worth, but that does not lead to a fall - even when they have affairs which breach the rules they themselves set up.
No amount of symbolic logic will solve this one for you, but it is still a worthwhile study and I would recommend it to you. Start with set theory and Boolean algebra, you’ll find it fun.
-
Alan’s mention of political figures suggests to us that most politicians have a self-view of inflated worth, but that does not lead to a fall - even when they have affairs which breach the rules they themselves set up.
Oh yes it does!
If you are Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Health you can participate in the infection of some five million people, be directly responsible for the deaths of about 40,000, give taxpayers' money to your family and friends for no return, and tell as many lies on broadcast television as you like. It's all part of the job and you will be praised by the Prime Minister for doing it so well. Indeed that corrupt and pathetic performance will lead to electoral gains for your Party and the further destruction of the British economy.
But if you are photographed kissing your secretary, you are doomed. That is against the rules, apparently.
-
Apparently, you can undertake activities which contribute to the spread of the virus- as long as you are Boris- who bragged about shaking hands with patients in a hospital, or if you are a friend of Boris - who drove up the motorway with his family to test his eyesight.
It beggars belief that anyone was conned into voting for these crooks.
-
Apropos the philology of the proposition, the statement "pride comes before a fall" does not include the words "always" or "only" and can therefore be held to be true in the absence of proof that it never happens.
This elevates the hypothesis to the status of "scientific knowledge" as it is based on observation, predictive, disprovable, and not yet disproven by experiment.
-
s long as you are Boris- who bragged about shaking hands with patients in a hospital
This is known among political advisers as "doing a Diana". Difference is that the Princess of Wales hugged patients whose disease could not be transmitted by superficial contact because (a) she had a brain and (b) she was concerned about the patients.
The question that can only be answered by future historians is whether a public demonstration of idiocy will be known as "doing a Boris" or "doing a Donald".
All of which seems at least vaguely related to the OP, so many thanks to Rachel for asking it.
-
Does pride really come before a fall?
Perhaps a more accurate paraphrase may be "Overconfidence comes before a fall".
I am sure that it is the usual case where a competent, skilled worker is good at their job, and takes justifiable pride in it. Provided they know their limits, and stay in their area of expertise (and aren't exposed to any curly cases), they won't fail. You could say that they already failed many times while gaining their experience, and can now avoid these pitfalls.
A common case of overconfidence is where you survey people as to their skills in driving or teachers in teaching (for example). The vast majority of people describe their skills as "better than average". It is clear that overconfidence due to an invalid self-assessment is common, and may be one contributor to a higher than necessary road toll or school dropout rate. These are examples of the Kruger-Dunning effect.
A more extreme case is when people are given a controlled driving test, while being given repeated doses of alcohol. The alcohol suppresses the ability to engage in critical thought, and so drivers asked to rate their performance show increasing self-confidence, even though they knocked over more orange cones with increased alcohol consumption. In this case, chemically-induced overconfidence does lead to more reckless driving and an increased accident rate.
- Apparently, the same overconfidence does not occur for another recreational drug, cannabis. The cannabis smokers are impaired, but they know they are impaired, and drive in a much more tentative fashion. In this case, a realistic self-assessment reduces the chance of an accident (compared to the same impairment due to alcohol).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Listen on "Illusory Superiority", starting at 1:10:30, duration 5 minutes at: https://after-on.com/episodes-31-60/055
-
Startling examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome are found in the Health and Safety Executive - it's almost a precondition of recruitment. The only idiot I have ever seen to cross a barrier clearly labelled "radioactive material - controlled area - do not cross" was an HSE inspector carrying a geiger counter that was already off-scale before he reached the line. Clear breach of Regulation 35 but AFAIK he didn't prosecute himself.
Best of all was a locked theatre door labelled "DANGER NO ENTRY". HM Inspector insisted on being given the key, walked through the door into total darkness and fell to his death on the stage.
Self-assessed averages are interesting. IIRC 75% of Americans have a better-than-average sense of humor, and whilst 80% love their neighbor, only 20% of neighbors love them.
-
Best of all was a locked theatre door labelled "DANGER NO ENTRY". HM Inspector insisted on being given the key, walked through the door into total darkness and fell to his death on the stage.
That's not actually true is it?
-
The only idiot I have ever seen to cross a barrier clearly labelled "radioactive material - controlled area - do not cross" was an HSE inspector carrying a geiger counter that was already off-scale before he reached the line. Clear breach of Regulation 35 but AFAIK he didn't prosecute himself.
Did you report this?
What was causing the radiation within the barrier?
Is it possible that the inspector understood that any barrier which you can easily cross- like a rope or a line on the floor- makes essentially no difference to the radiation level?
Was it possible that he understood that a short, one-off, exposure just within the barrier was actually lower than repeated long exposures just outside the barrier?
-
Best of all was a locked theatre door labelled "DANGER NO ENTRY". HM Inspector insisted on being given the key, walked through the door into total darkness and fell to his death on the stage.
That's not actually true is it?
Sadly, it is.
-
Did you report this?
yes. I think he was promoted.
What was causing the radiation within the barrier?
A regular consignment of medical radionuclides in transit, exactly according to the manifest that said HM Specialist Inspector had read before entering the warehouse.
Is it possible that the inspector understood that any barrier which you can easily cross- like a rope or a line on the floor- makes essentially no difference to the radiation level?
Not sure you can use the word "understood" in this context. The rule is to place the barrier at a point outside which public access is permitted by law, which is what had been done.
Was it possible that he understood that a short, one-off, exposure just within the barrier was actually lower than repeated long exposures just outside the barrier?
Again, "understood" is used out of context. Said inspector acted as though the laws of physics and the law of the land only apply to literate humans.
It is a matter of great sadness that, in the last 30 years, I have not encountered an HSE radiation inspector in Great Britain who actually understood anything about ionising radiation or appeared to have read the law he/she was paid (at your expense) to enforce.
-
Not sure you can use the word "understood" in this context. The rule is to place the barrier at a point outside which public access is permitted by law
So, you don't understand that a warranted inspector isn't "a member of the public".
I'm glad we have sorted that out.
It is a matter of great sadness that, in the last 30 years, I have not encountered an HSE radiation inspector in Great Britain who actually understood anything about ionising radiation or appeared to have read the law he/she was paid (at your expense) to enforce.
That's remarkable.
I have met quite a few, and they all knew their stuff.
Did it occur to you that given the choices
"Alan is right and all the others are wrong" and
"Alan is wrong, and all the others are right,"
The DK effect may not be going in the direction you imagine it does?
Anyway, back at the topic,
The answer is going to depend so much on what you mean by "pride" and a "fall", that it's impossible to answer unequivocally.
Pride month is June and that comes before Autumn (at least, it does in this hemisphere).
-
So, you don't understand that a warranted inspector isn't "a member of the public".
He is an employee of the Executive and thus subject to Reg 35.
The Regulations are quite easy to read. Nothing to do with me, but if the law says A and the inspector says B, the inspector is wrong.
-
This is getting both very silly, and way off the topic.
Is anyone allowed past the barrier?
Are you aware that police officers are allowed to break the speed limit, and to park on double yellow lines?
-
Only with reasonable excuse. Stupidity, idle curiosity, or picking up a takeaway, do not count. Not understanding the inverse square law is another invalid excuse.
Obviously, trained and monitored warehouse personnel pass the barrier to move the cargo, but only when absolutely necessary and with full preparation and a work plan to minimise their exposure and everyone else's. Idly wandering about with a geiger counter and saying "ooh!" is not considered to be essential work.
-
Idly wandering about with a geiger counter and saying "ooh!" is not considered to be essential work.
So, we are back to this:
Did it occur to you that given the choices
"Alan is right and all the others are wrong" and
"Alan is wrong, and all the others are right,"
The DK effect may not be going in the direction you imagine it does?
-
You are my Friend.
You are my Ally.
Just, at times...i am my own Enemy.
You my friend, my ally.
My Enemy is your Enemy.
I am your Enemy.
PS - Friend or Foe?
-
When mahatma Gandhi visited the UK he insisted he had to be accommodated in a home for down and outs instead of the Ritz so one had to be built and filled with actors .
Did the same happen when Diana was seen to be hugging AIDS sufferers