251–254 of 254 posts
So first about the article: >>The notion of standard deviation has confused hordes of scientists What an assertion! It also proved to be very useful for hordes of scientists... what about some examples of confused scientists ? >>There is no scientific reason to use it in statistical investigations in the age of the computer As someone who uses it daily I am eagerly awaiting his argument. >>Say someone just asked you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why this attitude? Simply because it's 'insulting'? Is it true? Should you not be far more concerned if it's true? That lots of scientists are misusing statistical tools? What does it say about you that you are posting angry vitriolic comments online because someone called out scientists misusing statistical tools but that you are not as alarmed that such a thing could be happening?
>Simply because it's 'insulting'? Because he makes a lot of bold/insulting claims and then fails to give one argument most of the time. When he does provide an argument it's very often nonsense (like with his analogy of someone being asked to calculate MAD). >Should you not be far more concerned if it's true? I am. I am also concerned about discrediting scientists without providing reasons. Creationism, anti-vaccinat…
I'm not sure why it took you so long to flip the bozo bit (if you were attempting to dance asymptotically along the edge it really has been a bravura performance!), but that did it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although its unfair to nitpick one paragraph since its out of context from the rest of the chapter/book, reading the aging paragraph makes me see where you are coming from with all this. The guy can't help himself. It's like reading a stock ticker (except its Taleb's stream of thought), flashing across with all the different thoughts that don't necessarily correlate with each other. You think there's some relevancy t…
Infact his goal is to alienate readers like the commenter above by writing in the old literary style. We are so accustomed to modern non-fiction following Malcolm Gladwell like structure for 10 year olds that we've lost the art of appreciating the meandering, scattershot expression of ideas in a literary style. In short, his filtering works.
So first about the article: >>The notion of standard deviation has confused hordes of scientists What an assertion! It also proved to be very useful for hordes of scientists... what about some examples of confused scientists ? >>There is no scientific reason to use it in statistical investigations in the age of the computer As someone who uses it daily I am eagerly awaiting his argument. >>Say someone just asked you…
bluecalm says: "What an assertion! It also proved to be very useful for hordes of scientists... what about some examples of confused scientists?" How about every single economist and financial analyst who failed to predict the financial crashes of the last 50 years? Did you realize how much money was lost over the last 50 years by the financial industry's reliance on models that improperly use the standard Gaussian b…