The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb • Hacker News Board

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#11

Post by dvanduzer » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 9:21 PM UTC

newtrader wrote: post #9

takasc2 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taleb does not accept/understand the criticism, and has posted some more mathiness and crude insults as a "response" would be another interpretation

Taleb response is not rude unlike Merberg https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/624767423049269249 reply

If you're going to create an account just to stan for Taleb, then please offer a little bit more substance in your comments.

Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle is not "misinterpreting" PP. The entire notion of "mathiness" put forth by the author is that PP is too wiggly, and thus open to whatever vague interpretation is convenient. That is the meat of what Merberg is saying, and handwaving it away isn't an argument.

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#12

Post by pcrh » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 9:27 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'…

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 artificially are in general not genes that would cause havoc if they somehow became mobilized from the species into which they were introduced. By way of example, the protein Bt confers resistance to insect predation,it is originally derived from a bacterium that killed insects in a parasitic cycle [1]. Plants, generally, have hundreds or thousands of ways of resisting insect predation, and adding one more to the mix is not going to devastate any ecosystem, at least not in the long term.

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

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

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#13

Post by littletimmy » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 10:16 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…

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.

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#14

Post by dvanduzer » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 10:39 PM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #13

pcrh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#15

Post by evanpw » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 10:49 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…

I am not a biologist, but I think of the ecological risk of GMO as something akin to AI risk: Not a serious risk at the current level of technology or in the near future, not sufficiently dangerous to stop research or forego the benefits of today's versions, but serious enough that it would be good for a few people to be thinking about it right now.

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#16

Post by pointeroffact » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 10:50 PM UTC

dvanduzer wrote: post #11

newtrader wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taleb response is not rude unlike Merberg https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/624767423049269249 reply

If you're going to create an account just to stan for Taleb, then please offer a little bit more substance in your comments. Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle is not "misinterpreting" PP. The entire notion of "mathiness" put forth by the author is that PP is too wiggly, and thus open to whatever vague interpretation is convenient. That is the meat of what Merberg is saying, and handwaving it away isn't an ar…

the person you are talking to is taleb himself. he pops up all over the internet when he is criticized and gives these very... terse responses.

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#17

Post by dvanduzer » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 10:59 PM UTC

pointeroffact wrote: post #16

dvanduzer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to create an account just to stan for Taleb, then please offer a little bit more substance in your comments. Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle is not "misinterpreting" PP. The entire notion of "mathiness" put forth by the author is that PP is too wiggly, and thus open to whatever vague interpretation is convenient. That is the meat of what Merberg is saying, and handwaving it away isn't an ar…

the person you are talking to is taleb himself. he pops up all over the internet when he is criticized and gives these very... terse responses.

says... another account created just to comment on this issue.

I put my foot in my mouth all the time, but I put my name to it. Taleb is interesting. Are you saying that the other account is literally Taleb, and that he's known for astroturfing campaigns? I wouldn't discard such a proposition, but I'd prefer hearing it from someone non-anonymous.

(For all I know, you're just an account created to extend the thread.)

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#18

Post by nkurz » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 11:01 PM UTC

I'm not sure if Taleb's precautionary principle should be applied to GMO's or not, but I found this critique to be somewhere between uncharitable and misguided.

For example, Taleb is already measuring earthquakes by the energy released. This is how "magnitude" is defined for earthquakes. Thus statements like "For instance, in the coffee cup example, Taleb measures the intensity of an earthquake by its magnitude. What happens if we measure an earthquake instead by the amount of energy it releases?" make me conclude that the author of the critique understands neither earthquakes nor Taleb.

As for the overall claim of fuzziness, it's probably best to let readers make their own judgement. Appendix C here is Taleb's "Mathematical Derivations of Fragility". While one can dispute where it should be applied, it's far from devoid of detail: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#19

Post by jacalata » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 11:14 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #18

I'm not sure if Taleb's precautionary principle should be applied to GMO's or not, but I found this critique to be somewhere between uncharitable and misguided. For example, Taleb is already measuring earthquakes by the energy released. This is how "magnitude" is defined for earthquakes. Thus statements like "For instance, in the coffee cup example, Taleb measures the intensity of an earthquake by its magnitude. What…

Isn't magnitude in the Richter scale the logarithm of the energy released? So everyone knows the difference between 5 and 6 is smaller than the difference between 6 and 7?

Re: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

#20

Post by wiwiw » Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 11:25 PM UTC

The GMO argument like so many things now seems to be divided into "Best thing since sliced bread" or "Bringer of the end of the world" camps. Not understanding the deep details I would like to see more nuanced debate. What are the actual and potential risk, and what are the actual and potential benefits.

On the risk side, GMO proponents like to argue that the technology is safe because we haven't found any ill effects. But what they are really saying is that we haven't found any so far. I remember studying genetics and being told about junk DNA, even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helical structure, suspected it was “little better than junk.” Since then this opinion has changed. We find out new things about DNA all the time, it is now thought that previous generations experiences can change decedents. Reading the recent articles about Chinese scientists using CRISPR to modifying embryos they started with 86, 71 survived, and 28 were successfully spliced, not really a precise operation. With this in mind I find anyone who says there is no risk is not being intellectually honest. The question that comes up is what are the chances that we are Marie Curie working with something that ultimately harms us?

In terms of assessing benefits I like to take the example of X-ray technology. From the 1920s to the 1970s a machine known as a shoe-fitting fluoroscope was used to see if shoes fit feet (especially children's feet). With the growing understanding of the harmful effects of radiation these machines were phased out, although never banned. That doesn't mean we don't x-ray people, we do, if you break a bone or go to the dentist the benefit of diagnosing the injury or cavity is considered to outweigh the damage from the radiation. For people in Western nations with plentiful food supplies the macro scale benefits of GMO seem limited, we weren't starving to death or going blind before GMOs. However if my family and friends were going blind due to Vitamin A deficiency the benefits would weigh more heavily on my opinion.

I don't claim to be an expert in this area but am interested in being provided with a more neutral analysis to help me form an opinion.