The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb • Hacker News Board

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#31

Post by pcrh » Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 12:35 PM UTC

x5n1 wrote: post #30

pcrh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument isn't that because something happens in nature it's OK. But rather it is closer to the argument that the Large Hadron Collider will not create a black hole that the whole planet will be sucked into. In the case of the LHC, we know that particles collide at the speeds planned all the time, yet this does not lead to black holes erupting everywhere. In the case of the gene transfers currently done, we know p…

LHC's website states: "Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies." This case is not analogous because in this planet's history there have been 6 different extinction events. So in order for it to be analogous, they would have to say that we know a few times in the past this has caused a black hole, but this is totally different. Pa…

My analogy of gene transfer with the LHC is as you quote; whatever humans do with respect to gene transfer has already been done many times over, and never resulted in a mass extinction event.

There are two mass extinction events that have a clear biological origin. Minor extinction events are a permanent feature of evolution.

The first is the evolution of photosynthesis causing the Great Oxygenation Event[0]. In this, cyanobacteria converted CO2 into water and oxygen on a massive scale. This lead to a cooling of the planet due to reduced CO2 levels and the precipitation of iron oxides into massive deposits worldwide, today visible as "banded iron formations" [1].

The second mass extinction with a clear biological origin is the current one, where Homo sapiens is converting a massive quantity of carbon previously sequestered during the carboniferous back into CO2 and warming the planet as a result. In addition, this species destroys the habitats of many other species.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#32

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 12:51 PM UTC

evanpw wrote: post #6

I like the term "mathiness" for this, because it seems like exactly the same kind of thing that's complained about in economics under that name. Namely, you claim (necessarily without proof) that a real-world phenomenon is analogous to a certain mathematical model. Then you prove some things about the model. Finally, you claim that the things you've proved about the model are also true about the real world. It doesn'…

I'm no mathematician or physicist but have often wondered of Godhart's Law[0] during testing of complex distributed systems. If we consider that Quantum Theory also says qbits are both off/on at the same time until measured, one might conclude the result of any data-science experiment becomes outdated as soon as it is performed.

Aren't all such (big-)data models (e.g. predicting natural disasters, stock-markets, global-warming, effects on GMO, ...) an attempt on measuring "real life"? And so can not be measured accurately because as soon as you take your snapshot data points and events inside the model will have moved on to a new state? Not that we shouldn't try to build these theories but accept them as theories or "soft-science" and not facts.

As soon as we have simplified a complex hard to understand system into a chart we tend to ignore that these "facts" represent at best a snapshot of reality (one version of it) from a specific point in time but certainly not the future.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#33

Post by Tycho » Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 7:24 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #7

JackFr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hardly debunking. I would call it further obfuscation and and an appeal to motive. Taleb is a noble truth seeker and the GMO proponents are out to silence him. Hardly. Having read his books, he's a bright guy often with compelling ideas. If he would leave them as thought experiments and appeals to common sense honestly I think his arguments would be more effective. His need to formalize everything mathematical…

That's most of his writing though: throw a lot of complicated words at the reader and hope some naive ones start seeing mystique depth in his thought. His writing is incoherent though. Even reading abstract of his paper [1]: >>We present a non-naive version of the Precautionary (PP) that allows us to avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and problems. PP is intended to deal with unc…

Seemed coherent to me. Which part didn't you understand?

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#34

Post by Tycho » Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 7:27 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #27

x5n1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the whole regulatory capture side of GMO. The ownership of all plants on Earth by a few corporations. That part is also worrying because it brings all food under the control of a few corporations under the patents regime.

How is it that this isn't THE major issue?

Because patents are just legal constructs which can be repealed or ignored, unlike catastrophic damage to the ecosphere...

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#35

Post by Tycho » Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

dvanduzer wrote: post #14

littletimmy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that GMOs are OK because something similar happens in nature is a poor argument. Just because there exists in nature Process X that leads to Outcome Y, does not mean that a man-made Process Z that also leads to Outcome Y is good. Nature has a way of eliminating failures; humans have a way to offload failures off to someone else.

Humans are part of nature, and you might be confusing arguments with logic. The effective aspect of the scientific method that separates it from scientism is falsifiability. The comparison for falsification here is "GMO farming" versus "status quo farming"; nowhere is nature involved.

I think the argument is that 'status quo farming' engages in localised tinkering in a way which is similar to what occurs in nature, whereas GMOs are examples of top-down engineering which will be imposed across the whole planet.

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#36

Post by sitkack » Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 10:09 PM UTC

pcrh wrote: post #12

evanpw wrote: post #6

I like the term "mathiness" for this, because it seems like exactly the same kind of thing that's complained about in economics under that name. Namely, you claim (necessarily without proof) that a real-world phenomenon is analogous to a certain mathematical model. Then you prove some things about the model. Finally, you claim that the things you've proved about the model are also true about the real world. It doesn'…

From the point pf view of a biologist, his argument against GMO is pretty weak. He is essentially saying that we don't know , therefore there could be a large negative consequence. However, he has failed to grasp, or educate himself sufficiently, that gene transfer between organisms is in fact a common occurrence in natural ecosystems [0]. Further, at this moment at least, the genes that are being transferred artific…

If a system is complex and we don't fully understand it, shouldn't we take caution? I have seen arguments, from similar positions of authority and nearly every time an expert chimed in, they were eventually to either be bullshitting or proven wrong.