Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#11

Post by MetricExpansion »

1cvmask wrote: post #7
echelon wrote: post #5

I miss Michael Crichton. His writing and imagination reinforced my interest in science and engineering and got me interested in studying biochem in undergrad. I should not have been reading his books in the third grade, but it was a defining period for me. The 90's were great. Michael Crichton, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, LeVar Burton, Mr. Wizard, Stephen Hawking, Lonnie Johnson (local engineer and inventor of Nerf and Sup…

I had to look up who Derek Muller is.

He’s actually a person to whom I applied the “opposite” of the Gell Mann effect to. I first watched his videos on the stuff I did know something about to make sure he was covering the nuances before watching his other material. Now I watch his other videos on things I don’t know about, trusting that he’ll cover the nuances of those subjects.

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#14

Post by derbOac »

godelski wrote: post #6

I think this can be a great tool to vet sources. I've often found that looking for subjects I am an expert on lets me understand how much nuance and understanding someone is putting into presenting some work. I've found this to be extremely important because many of the tough (and popular) topics we discuss today are extremely complex. But if people are only going into the basics and don't talk to experts about the c…

It's a big assumption though, yes? Namely, that the accuracy of information, or lack thereof, will somehow be consistent across topic areas?

It seems reasonable to me to expect journalists to have a better grasp of certain things than others (say politics or law instead of physics), and for this to vary across writers (one writer might have a background in chemistry; another in population biology).

I also think there's a certain variability of opinion on certain topics when you get to a certain level, and experts aren't always aware of this. That is, some (not all) tend to believe they are infallible and everyone else who disagrees is incorrect, or sometimes, "unscientific." There's probably several ways this could play a role, but I do think it plays some role in this.

I think this Gell-Mann amnesia is sort of a real bias that's interesting to think about, but I also think in reality it might not be quite what's being assumed in this essay.

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#15

Post by golemotron »

chmaynard wrote: post #3

John Cook's blog posts are often interesting and are generally very well-written. I wonder why he is so obsessed with his blog? To promote his consulting business? That may be a factor, but he posts so frequently that there must be a stronger motivation.

What makes you think he is obsessed with it?

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#16

Post by godelski »

derbOac wrote: post #14
godelski wrote: post #6

I think this can be a great tool to vet sources. I've often found that looking for subjects I am an expert on lets me understand how much nuance and understanding someone is putting into presenting some work. I've found this to be extremely important because many of the tough (and popular) topics we discuss today are extremely complex. But if people are only going into the basics and don't talk to experts about the c…

It's a big assumption though, yes? Namely, that the accuracy of information, or lack thereof, will somehow be consistent across topic areas? It seems reasonable to me to expect journalists to have a better grasp of certain things than others (say politics or law instead of physics), and for this to vary across writers (one writer might have a background in chemistry; another in population biology). I also think there…

> It's a big assumption though, yes? Namely, that the accuracy of information, or lack thereof, will somehow be consistent across topic areas?

Yes and no. It's more a method to rule out, not rule in. If a presenter gives bad information about something I know I can't trust them. If a presenter gives good information about something I know, it builds evidence that I can trust them. These two are different. The latter isn't complete trust and still maintains skepticism. At the end of the day, we have to have some trust. But that also doesn't mean absolute.

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#17

Post by tuatoru »

carabiner wrote: post #13

The Gell-Mann Dunning Kruger Betteridge Godwin Effect, part of HN bingo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_laws

My favourite is Stein's Law (heavily paraphrased): "if something cannot go on, it will stop".

(Stein was a trade economist, talking about trade imbalances. But the law generalises nicely.)

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#18

Post by carabiner »

godelski wrote: post #16
derbOac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big assumption though, yes? Namely, that the accuracy of information, or lack thereof, will somehow be consistent across topic areas? It seems reasonable to me to expect journalists to have a better grasp of certain things than others (say politics or law instead of physics), and for this to vary across writers (one writer might have a background in chemistry; another in population biology). I also think there…

> It's a big assumption though, yes? Namely, that the accuracy of information, or lack thereof, will somehow be consistent across topic areas? Yes and no. It's more a method to rule out, not rule in. If a presenter gives bad information about something I know I can't trust them. If a presenter gives good information about something I know, it builds evidence that I can trust them. These two are different. The latter…

What if a presenter does both?

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#19

Post by paulmd »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #10
AlexCoventry wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crichton gave a lot of cover to climate-change denialism, though, speaking of Murray-Gellman effects.

Less denialism than caution against jumping to conclusions and "consensus". He understood that to base society off of models with phenomenally low confidence has the potential to harm more than help, despite any good intentions.

Of course, which is why there isn't "one" model, there's lots of models, and they provide a statistical range of expected possibilities. And of course Crichton knows that damned well himself.

Applying impossibly high (or inappropriately high) standards of proof is a bog-standard rhetorical tactic - "how can we ever know anything with total certainty after all?". And yet the effects predicted by the consensus models have if anything proved to be too conservative, a possibility that the ever-so-open-minded Crichton never mentioned at all! Certainly that was always a possibility too, and yet he only cared to harp on the one possibility that was most comfortable to his mindset. And that's a kind of bias too - the willingness to dismiss presented evidence when it's inconvenient personally or politically.

As they say, though, science advances one funeral at a time. It's just rather sad that it occurred at such a critical time in our planet's history, and that this particular individual had a megaphone and yet used it for such negative ends.

Re: Gell-Mann amnesia and its opposite

#20

Post by AlexCoventry »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #10
AlexCoventry wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crichton gave a lot of cover to climate-change denialism, though, speaking of Murray-Gellman effects.

Less denialism than caution against jumping to conclusions and "consensus". He understood that to base society off of models with phenomenally low confidence has the potential to harm more than help, despite any good intentions.

It's crazy to characterize those models as "phenomenally low confidence," and it seems at this stage that that ignorance is highly likely to get a lot of people killed. It was basic physical chemistry.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/michael-crichton-and-glob...

Post reply on HN