[Wittrs] Re: The Black Swan Phenomenon (Was: What is Analysis?)
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:23:58 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> Written by money manager and philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb, it
> argues for something akin to Neil's position, that we don't really
> know the world around us though we think we do, mainly, of course,
> because we impute an order to it that isn't really there.
That's not at all akin to my position. I have no doubt that we know
the world around us pretty well, even though imperfectly.
Incidently, the reason I have not been posting over the last few days,
is that I don't know how to deal with this degree of misunderstanding.
Somehow, I am repeatedly being interpreted as saying things very
different from what I am actually saying.
What I have been arguing, is that people do not understand what
knowledge is, how it works (how it can connect us to the world), and
how we can come to have knowledge. And, incidently, the reason I tend
to be critical of philosophy, is that philosophers set themselves up as
being the experts on knowledge yet they get it wrong.
> Taking a leaf from Popper's book, Taleb argues that not only are
> we unable to draw a reliable inductive conclusion about what there
> is based on the evidence observed (Popper's thesis which led to
> his formulation of his falisification thesis), we are, he asserts,
> actually misled by our tendency to see order in the world around us.
I am not a fan of Popper's falsificationism. I sometimes note that
falsificationism is itself unfalsifiable, though fans of Popper
apparently don't see that as a problem. Presumably, Taleb is
commenting on a human tendency to jump to conclusions. While there is
such a tendency, that is not at all what I have been attempting to
discuss.
> This doesn't counter Hawkins' thesis that our brains work by
> patterning and that, to a large extent, that patterning is
> successful.
You continue to confuse me in your comments on Hawkins.
Here you describe him as saying that we pattern the world, and are
usually successful in doing so. At other times, you describe him as
saying that the world is patterned independent of us, and that we find
those patterns. Those two seem very different and the difference is
important. When I listened to Hawkins' Ted.com video, he seemed to he
saying that latter - that we pickup patterns that are already there.
That is where I disagree with Hawkins, and presumably that is what
Taleb finds fault with.
> According to Taleb, psychologists have tested these two statements
> and found their subjects overwhelmingly more likely to judge the
> second statement as more probable than the first, when, in fact,
> it is the reverse, i.e., a flood anywhere in the U.S. for any cause
> that kills a thousand people has a greater chance of occurring than
> a flood in a particular location from a particular cause.
That people seem to behave in this way is well documented in psychology
research, such as that of Kahneman and Tversky. And then there is the
research purporting to show that humans are irrational. That's all
very different from the points I have been trying (unsuccessfuly) to
make.
> In light of my past discussions here with Neil about whether it's
> fair to say that we pattern the world in a way that reflects the
> order we find in it, I think it only fair to put Taleb's arguments
> on the table since they seem, at least superficially, to support
> Neil's point.
However, the resemblance is superficial. The point I am trying to make
is very different and more fundamental. It is so fundamental, that
philosophers should have seen it long ago.
Regards,
Neil
Other related posts:
