It’s interesting how rare it is that one gets to directly address the ‘academic prejudices’ that people hold, like the little sparks one can see flying from Gardner’s list of characteristics of a “crank” and Falkenstein’s use of it. The list and it’s use neatly ignore that both rather neatly fit the model their own derogatory stereotype!... We should beware of using “neo-con like” judgment in science. I prefer the ‘mantra’ that “no matter what the complaint, there’s nearly always something to it,.. if I only knew what!”
“Expert error” and “expert confusion” is unquestionably the direct cause of our world collapsing right now, for example. It’s expert designed systems that are doing it. I’ve been pointing very directly to the critical errors being made. So has Taleb, from another approach. It’s important not only look for solutions, but also to see what is unsolvable. It explains why previously trustworthy systems can go hopelessly out of control. A usual part of expert error, of course, is reading “dismissal before content” in the usual peer review process. Is that truly as unsolvable as it seems? Phil Henshaw From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 3:18 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Black Swan Greetings, all -- It was nice to be in Santa Fe again, albeit briefly. Eric Falkenstein is not a lover of Taleb, and so I'll pass this along with that proviso and note that it's helpful to think through some of both Taleb's statements and Falkenstein's reactions: http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/fooled-by-randomness.html Here is an earlier posting by Falkenstein that may give you some of the flavor of his feelings for Taleb: Martin Gardner wrote a popular column for Scientific American, and in the process received a lot of mail from ‘cranks’ telling him about perpetual motion machines and the like. So he wrote a book called Fads <http://www.amazon.com/Fads-Fallacies-Name-Science-Popular/dp/0486203948> and Fallacies. In the book he describes "cranks" who he describes as having five <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_and_Fallacies_in_the_Name_of_Science> invariable characteristics: 1. A profound intellectual superiority complex. 2. Regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system. 3. Believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur. 4. Attacks only the biggest theories and scientific figures. 5. Coins neologisms. On Taleb’s personal website he describes himself thusly: He is also an essayist, belletrist, literary-philosophical-mathematical flâneur. The third-person is perfect pitch for describing himself, and the rest , well, literary-philosophical-mathematical types—especially flâneurs—tend to be full of themselves, supporting Gardner’s characteristic #1. He prides himself on not submitting articles to refereed journals, and considers most people who are indifferent to him as fools, disdains editors, even spellcheckers (#2). He pridefully notes that someone told him “in another time he would have been hanged [me: for what, inanity?].” Wilmott <http://www.wilmott.com/> Magazine, a quant publication published by his colleague Paul Wilmott, wrote a fawning article <http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/0603_coverstory.pdf> about him where they noted that he is “Wall Street’s principal dissident. Heretic! Calvin to finance’s Catholic Church” (#3). His website states his modest desire to understand chance from the viewpoint of “philosophy/epistemology, philosophy/ethics, mathematics, social science/finance, and cognitive science”, supporting #4. Lastly, for #5, has gone so far as to print a glossary <http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/glossary.pdf> for his neologisms (eg, “epistemic arrogance” for “overconfidence”). In Martin Gardner’s taxonomy, Taleb is a classic crank. (end of excerpt - via Mahalanobis 20 April 2007) - Claiborne - -----Original Message----- From: Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Sent: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 7:42 am Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Black Swan I'd agree Taleb does not communicate his main insights consistently, and uses fuzzy generalities that you need to "grok" to make sense of. I don't think one needs to deal with all that to get the main point, though. The reasons why *statistical analysis fails for subjects of increasing non-homogenous complexity* seems invaluable. It's a principle that might be derived simply from any number of directions, and is an important point. Our world is making the critical error exposed in any number of ways it appears. It's also interestingly central to the complexity theory of W M Elsasser that he developed in the 50's and 60's. He's an extraordinarily clear thinking theoretical physicist/biologist who points to that as a gap in statistical mechanics that needs to be considered for any attempt to model non-homogenous systems like life. I even find that "strategy of the gaps" remotely similar to how Rosen points to why divergent sequences can't be represented in closed systems of equations, but are clearly part of life, and so are necessary for any attempt to model such n on-homogenously developing and changing systems as life. Phil Henshaw > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] On > Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:59 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] The Black Swan > > I am currently trying to read Taleb's "Black Swan". > Paul and Glen mentioned it earlier a few weeks ago, > and Russ said it has some nice points. So I read > the first chapter and thought "well, interesting". > Then I read the second about Yevgenia Krasnova, > a fictional character which embodies his anger > about publishers, and thought "what a crap". > > Somehow it goes on like this: it is hard to > say if it is crap (his "Mediocristan" and > "Extremistan" for example) or a masterpiece. > Chapter three is better again. Many ideas > are exhilarating, but the terms are often > very idiosyncratic. > > His main topic, the "Black Swan", is less > interesting than the many thought provoking > ideas one can find between the lines, when Taleb > talks about his experiences or uprising. After > all, points where little things can make a big > difference are not new, John H. Holland has > called them "Lever points", Murray20Gell-Mann > "frozen accidents", and Gladwell "tipping points". > > Do you agree? What do you think are his most > interesting points? I like for instance the > paragraphs about "scalable professions": > for Taleb it is "a profession in which you are > not paid by the hour and thus subject to the > limitations of the amount of labor" (p. 27). > It is in interesting idea to apply "scalability" > to professions and payoffs. > > -J. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org _____ Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar - Download <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212904500x1200818240/aol?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/games/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000004> Now!
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
