3,078
edits
Changes
→Measuring
:''Genuine evidence'' is relatively infrequent, and Kuhn required a series of questions and probes in face-to-face interviews to elicit the little evidence that people offered.
:''Coherence'' (or integrative complexity) requires at least two arguments plus elaboration. In the current application, they have ignored integrative complexity.
Finally, our analytic system does not attempt to ''distinguish accurate from inaccurate reasons''. For example, suppose a person favored the Republican party and did so “because the party’s policies favored the poor over the rich.” We do not judge this
claim as inaccurate primarily because it is extremely difficult to know what reasons and evidence support the claim. A person could believe in trickle-down economics and so support policies that enrich the wealthy with the expectation of improving the plight of
the poor. We leave factually accurate and inaccurate responses to the realm of standard closed-ended knowledge questions.
==References==