Further Refutation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Posted by -

Several months ago, we examined how the Dunning-Kruger effect, frequent fodder for anti-Christian and anti-creationist remarks, has been debunked. You know the routine: A Christian makes a statement of fact and atheopaths talk to each other as if the Christian was not seeing it, saying he is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Or it is a direct insult. People who do this are not citing science. (More like they got it from the seventh planet.) The D-K effect took another hit. This time, from mathematics.

A common attack by atheists on creationists is that we exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect. Attackers use fake science, which has been further refuted.
Partially made at ImgFlip, plus a great deal of editing
The key point for Dunning and Kruger was that people don't know that they don't know. This came from a use of statistics. In that peer-reviewed paper, those fellas did it wrong. Now it is refuted three ways. Something this child has enjoyed is showing misotheists who think they are smarter than they really are is that they are using an ad hominem from fake science. It also illustrates how atheists and evolutionists often bring out material that is outdated or even debunked in their attacks on the Creator and his people, but they are unaware (or do not care) that the material is no good.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is frequently touted as a meme in social media to shame people. The effect can be stated various ways:
  • The least competent people are the most proud of their knowledge or ability.
  • Confidence in a subject is inversely proportional to knowledge about it.
  • If you are really, really stupid, then it’s impossible for you to know you are really, really stupid.
A common graph used to illustrate the Dunning-Kruger Effect is based on bad science.

You can read it all at "More Proof that the Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Fake."