Via Ilkka I came across a blog called The Programmer’s Paradox, whose author claims he has refuted Cantor’s diagonalization argument through the discovery of a new mathematical object he calls “magic sequences“. Rather than that guy specifically, I’d like to talk about his general type. There are plenty of cranks out there who claim to have build perpetual motion machines, shown the age of the earth to be 6000 years or refuted all the claimed evidence for the Holocaust (more like Holohoax with a dollar sign thrown in somewhere, amirite?). If they’ve been polishing their crankery for a while, it can be somewhat intimidating for a skeptical layman to try to take them on. Not so for the armchair crank, there is just their argument in a short readable form. They probably don’t have any credentials or a bibliography to check out. This short argument is supposed to be revolutionary, totally upending an established field but people just hadn’t thought of it until now. Another example is the expositor of “Post-Austrian Economics”, whose wish to remain nameless will be upheld here. Standard economics these days can involve tricky empirical analyses and complicated models, but PAE rested on philosophy and even verged (explicitly!) toward theology. Finally, I’ll add mjgeddes through he implied I could get sued for calling him a crank. There’s something charmingly egalitarian about armchair cranks. Anyone can produce armchair crankery themselves and anyone argue with an armchair crank on a level playing field. As knowledge becomes more specialized there is less room for armchair crankery (Caledonian/melendwyr says philosophy is what is left over when actual knowledge becomes science), so perhaps we should enjoy it while it lasts.
Speaking of Ilkka, he appears to be on vacation again. Let’s hope it isn’t as long as the last one. Other news in blogdom is that The Money Illusion and the blog formerly known as The Austrian Economists have new urls.
January 3, 2010 at 10:12 am
Oddly, I don’t really view myself as a crank. Sure, I’ve been posting some ‘non-standard’ views, but I’m doing it more to get a discussion going, ask questions and learn, than I am to show I am right (and it turns out, if you follow the comments I haven’t been right about anything (yet)). It has certainly been a lively discussion.
The ‘cranks’ are just the guys who are proven wrong. Everybody probably thought Cantor was a crank, and I’m sure Einstein probably wasn’t greeted very politely when he first published. History is full of mathematicians, scientists, engineers and others whose ideas buck the establishment, contradict what is known, or just change things. We praise them when they are right, but it seems people are merciless if they are wrong.
But now there is a fear of putting a wrong idea out there that seems to be getting worse. Rather than foster a climate of open and constructive thinking and exploration, the web has become a medium for shouting down anyone with an alternate viewpoint. For making fun of people who don’t think or act the same. For constraining the content to be only the popular content. For enforcing the establishment’s view of things.
Paul.
January 3, 2010 at 1:48 pm
>Standard economics these days can involve tricky empirical analyses and complicated models
You say it so glowingly. O, To be Physiks! What cruel fate, social science!
Empirical analysis. LOL
January 5, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I don’t know whether Cantor was viewed as a crank.
But here’s the difference: actual revolutionary work, when people get around to examining it, is valid. Crankery isn’t.
Even highly reputable scholars sometimes make stupid mistakes… and when they do, people tend to not notice, because the reputation blinds them to the possibility.
January 6, 2010 at 1:03 am
Paul, what crank DOES view themselves as a crank? More seriously, I actually agree there is some value in contrarian crankery in getting us to think stuff over more.
I knew Turing killed himself, but that was because he was gay. I didn’t know about the others.
hato,
I was making a point about the difficulty of a laymen grasping material. Also, I’d like to point out that there is a fusion of economics with physics dubbed “econophysics”, though it’s still considered heterodox.
melendwyr, one might argue that work was valid before anyone got around to examining it. There can also be work that is examined and dismissed but much later is accepted as valid.
January 6, 2010 at 10:12 am
Tee,
Have you seen this about arguably America’s greatest internet crackpot (and the competition for that much desired title is quite stiff)
http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_01.html
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0107&week=&msg=C7elCpf5lP033ARNbvHjfg&user=&pw=
http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg
Mehler questions MacDonald’s use of sources.
My concern, at present, with Mr. MacDonald’s work, is with his use of
sources. For example, in MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Jewish involvement
in
influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical
review. Population and Environment, 19, 295-355. Mr. MacDonald uses
Neuringer, S. M. (1969). American Jewry and United States immigration
policy, 1881-1953 Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1971; reprinted by Arno Press
(New
York), 1980. He cites Neuringer extensively throughout the article.
Here
is an example of how MacDonald uses this source.
On page sixteen MacDonald writes:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164) notes that Jewish opposition to the 1921 and
1924
legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish
immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America
should
be dominated by individuals with northern and western European
ancestry.
The Jewish interest was thus to oppose the ethnic interests of the
peoples
of northwestern Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or
increasing
their percentage of the population. …
Here is the relevant passage from Neuringer:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164): “What is of at least equal significance is
that
the members of this group opposed these laws more because they
possessed
the taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism than because they would
drastically limit Jewish immigration.”
It seems to me, Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this
case
and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the
literature
might have a judgement on MacDonald’s use of the historical data.
Barry Mehler
January 6, 2010 at 7:53 pm
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24339?in=38:21&out=47:19
January 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
MacDonald seems to fall in the “polishing his crankery for a long time” category.
January 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Oooohhhhhhhhhh,
Lookee thar – ICK makes an appeal to authority. Sadly I’m not intimidated regardless of whatever David Sloan Wilson thinks.
So tell me ICK, do you think good ol’ DSW would support MacDonald if Wilson knew KM is lying*** about the Jews being hyperethnocentric:
*** http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf
Lawdy Lawdy Lawdy, Mac seems to have a wee bit of difficulty quoting his own refs truthfully. I do wonder why.
But no matter. As long as David Sloan Wilson says Kevin is on the up and up it doesn’t matter how much MacDonald lies, now does it?
January 6, 2010 at 9:20 am
It’s not that I wouldn’t mind being a crank. They have a certainly in their beliefs that I just can’t seem to find in mine. I just can’t help but to be objective (so objective that I don’t assume 139 years of math is correct just by virtue of the time it’s been around).
I picked up the label because I published things that turned out to be wrong, and on which I wasn’t an expert. If I were right the label would be different. :-)
As for work that took a long while to be accepted: see Évariste Galois
Paul.
January 7, 2010 at 6:34 am
I don’t think that there is any doubt that Jews are “operationally” (i.e. actions in the real world as opposed to answers on questionnaires )almost infinitely more ethnocentric than non-Jewish whites. Seems to be the result of a post-Sixties development that made being a non-Jewish white “uncool”-with the partial exception of Americanized ethnic Italians. “Jersey Shore” seems to be the final stage of popculture ethnic cleansing for the latter group.
Non-Jewish whites quite obviously have no orgs remotely in the league of the ADL or AIPAC. Or Hollywood. What you say, no mention of the power of The Ancient Order of Hibernians?
And don’t forget grass-roots ethnocentric activity like that described by Sailer:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/12/jews-of-bentonville-arkansas.html
January 7, 2010 at 10:49 am
I don’t think that there is any doubt that Jews are “operationally” (i.e. actions in the real world as opposed to answers on questionnaires )almost infinitely more ethnocentric than non-Jewish whites.
Infinitely ethnocentric! GeeWilikers! Hit EGI-Warp 25 Cap’n Crunch!
Is that even worse than Superfragilisticexpialidocious Ultra-Ethnocentric? Sounds real good’n Sciemuntific KKKleetus.
Seriously if there is “no doubt” that the Jews are Superfragilisticexpialidocious Ethnocentric why does Kevin reduce himself to taking an infinity of “creative liberties” with his own citations?
Kevin sure does approaches rather extreme levels of dishonesty to prove something for which there is “no doubt.”
Non-Jewish whites quite obviously have no orgs remotely in the league of the ADL or AIPAC.
a: What percentage of lobbyist money is spent by the ADL and AIPAC each year?
b: Why is it the fault of the Jooooooooooos that whites don not have their own organizations? If whites are the Master Race why are they unable to politically organize? R dey Stooooopid?
And don’t forget grass-roots ethnocentric activity like that described by Sailer:
Once more I am not awed with your appeals to authority. The Jews did nothing in linked New York Times article which could be considered ethnocentric.
Now if I might drag this conversation back to MacDonald here is a little song for him:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg
Mehler questions MacDonald’s use of sources.
My concern, at present, with Mr. MacDonald’s work, is with his use of
sources. For example, in MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Jewish involvement
in
influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical
review. Population and Environment, 19, 295-355. Mr. MacDonald uses
Neuringer, S. M. (1969). American Jewry and United States immigration
policy, 1881-1953 Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1971; reprinted by Arno Press
(New
York), 1980. He cites Neuringer extensively throughout the article.
Here
is an example of how MacDonald uses this source.
On page sixteen MacDonald writes:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164) notes that Jewish opposition to the 1921 and
1924
legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish
immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America
should
be dominated by individuals with northern and western European
ancestry.
The Jewish interest was thus to oppose the ethnic interests of the
peoples
of northwestern Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or
increasing
their percentage of the population. …
Here is the relevant passage from Neuringer:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164): “What is of at least equal significance is
that
the members of this group opposed these laws more because they
possessed
the taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism than because they would
drastically limit Jewish immigration.”
It seems to me, Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this
case
and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the
literature
might have a judgement on MacDonald’s use of the historical data.
Barry Mehler
January 7, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I’ve been sent those links on MacDonald before. Meh. I don’t buy into group selection and haven’t bothered to read his books (or David Sloan Wilson). I think it’s clear at this point that he’s chosen to be a sort of ethnic activist rather than a scholar.
Rather than Jewish/non-Jewish ethnocentrism I think within whites there are groups dubbed “ethnic” that are allowed to express some pride in it. English and Germans are not included, perhaps due to their association with traditional Protestantism (and perhaps being rural instead of urbanites). See how 4.5 million Irish immigrants became 40 million Irish Americans. As for Jewish ethnocentrism, the Inductivist reports that it is higher than average, but certainly not “infinitely” so. I will say that it is much more acceptable for Jewish Americans to be ethnocentric than average white Americans, perhaps because Jewishness is not merely an ethnicity but also a religion. In America it is unusually acceptable to be highly religious (Jewish immigrants were actually nudged into greater religiosity), which Razib has suggested as a possible factor in our relatively successful assimilation of Muslims. Jewish ethnocentrism is mitigated by the fact that they are prototypical modern cosmopolitans. I suggest here that’s the best lens for analyzing modern American Jews.
I recall reading about Galois in John Derbyshire’s “Unknown Quantity” but I don’t remember opposition to his theory. Lucky for him someone else was able to push it forward despite resistance since he was a tad too deceased for the job.
AIPAC is strictly about American foreign policy. I don’t think it makes sense to compare it to standard ethnic activist groups.
“why does Kevin reduce himself to taking an infinity of “creative liberties” with his own citations”
Could be he’s just a sloppy scholar generally.
January 8, 2010 at 6:26 pm
FYI David Sloan Wilson is one the few remaining evolutionary psychologists who still thinks group selection is a workable evolutionary framework. He’s somewhat eccentric but I am under the impression Wilson is generally respected by his peers.
I think it’s clear at this point that he’s chosen to be a sort of ethnic activist rather than a scholar.
You might have a point because MacDonald has just formed his own political party.
It is probably most unwise for him to start drawing too much attention to himself. Otherwise news reporters and historical researchers such a Mr. David Lieberman may begin to peer a bit too deeply into his research practices for MacDonald’s comfort.
American Third Position
http://american3p.org/
Still, since MacDonald fancies himself to be a scholar his scholarship should be fair game, Oui?
English and Germans are not included, perhaps due to their association with traditional Protestantism (and perhaps being rural instead of urbanites).
Or possibly Anglo-German Americans seem superficialy less cogniszant of their race because Anglo-German Protestantism is the cultural fulcrum every other white American group attempts to assimilate into?
As for Jewish ethnocentrism, the Inductivist reports that it is higher than average, but certainly not “infinitely” so.
At the Inductivist site Jewish ethnocentrism was only higher than other whites because of Orthodox Jews. When Inductivist measured Jews seperetly by denomination liberal Reform Jews wound up as a bit less ethnocentric than other American whites and non-affiliated Jews were even less ethnocentric than Reform Jews.
So it appears MacDonald has it exactly wrong – Jewish liberals are liberal because of a comparative lack of racial tribalism rather than an excess of ethnic pride.
Could be he’s just a sloppy scholar generally.
The only possible explanations for those quotes are either he’s an out of control liar with delusions of Grandeur (which would neatly explain his creating a new-Nazi party) or he’s completely stupid. It’s either one or the other.
January 8, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Here’s the first article about MacDonald’s new party. No doubt the faculty of CSULB is right now weeping tears of joy.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_14127622
January 8, 2010 at 6:52 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity
Grandiosity is chiefly associated with narcissistic personality disorder, but also commonly features in manic or hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder.[1]
It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view other with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.[2]
Grandiosity is distinct from grandiose delusions, in that the sufferer has insight into his loss of touch with reality.
[edit] Narcissistic criteria for grandiosity
The grandiosity section of the Diagnostic Interview for Narcissism (DIN) (Second edition) is as follows:[3]
The person exaggerates talents, capacity and achievements in an unrealistic way.
The person believes in her/his invulnerability or does not recognise his/her limitations.
The person has grandiose fantasies.
The person believes that he/she does not need other people.
The person regards himself/herself as unique or special when compared to other people.
The person regards himself/herself as generally superior to other people.
The person behaves self-centeredly and/or self-referentially.
The person appears or behaves in a boastful or pretentious way.
January 8, 2010 at 7:12 pm
http://www.ocweekly.com/related/to/American+Third+Position+Party
January 7, 2010 at 6:56 pm
TGGP, did you see Moldbug’s latest post?
Something about the “Maxwell’s Equations of Software” or something.
Since you’re a programmer, I wonder if you could interpret and explain that post. It’s a short post, but completely over my head and I would assume over the heads of most non-programmers generally.
January 7, 2010 at 9:58 pm
His “context” links concern Lisp. I mentioned before I’m not really a fan of it, or functional languages generally. However, he claims “Nock” is not a language itself but a means of defining languages. Since I’m not into functional languages I didn’t look too closely at it, and what I did see I didn’t quite get.
Abhishek shows how to understand his test case of generating (s + 1) from *[s f]. Mencius said that f was [5 0 1], so *[s f] is *[s 5 0 1]. One of his examples for the * operator was *[a 5 b] => ^*[a b], which in this case is ^*[s 0 1]. Another example for the * operator was *[a 0 b] => /[b a], so *[s 0 1] is /[1 s]. His example for the / operator was that /[1 a] => a, so /[1 s] is s. That handles out * operator from before but we still have the ^ from ^*[s 0 1], which is now just ^s. His example for the ^ operator is that ^a = (a + 1), so ^s is (s + 1), just like he said.
The challenge he gives is to find a way to generate (s – 1). Unfortunately for us, there is no operator equivalent to ^ that will handle subtraction. There are ways of generating the constants 0 and 1, so my guess is the generate the 1 a bunch of times and add them up with the addition operator to get (s – 1).
I don’t get why many of his example reductions just result in the original input and whether nested brackets can just be ignored (Abhishek’s example suggests yes and I don’t know how to do it otherwise, but some of the example reductions look like they’re making use of the brackets).
The *[a 2 b c d] example is quite ugly. I think the right side can be reduced further but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
January 7, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Here’s a first attempt at my “exercise for the reader”:
*[a 3 [0 1] 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b] =>
**[a [0 1] 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b] =>
*[*[a 0 1] *[a 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]] =>
*[/[1 a] *[a 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]] =>
*[a *[a 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]] =>
*[a **[a [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]] =>
*[a [*[a 1 c d] *[a [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]] =>
*[a [c d *[a [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]] =>
*[a [c d [*[a 1 0] *[a 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 *[a 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 **[a [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 *[*[a 1 2 3] *[a [1 0] 5 5 b]]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 *[2 3 *[a [1 0] 5 5 b]]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 **[2 *[a [1 0] 5 5 b]]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 **[2 [*[a 1 0] *[a 5 5 b]]]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 **[2 [0 *[a 5 5 b]]]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 **[2 [0 ^*[a 5 b]]]]] =>
*[a [c d [0 **[2 [0 ^^*[a b]]]]]
I probably screwed up somewhere along the way.
January 8, 2010 at 6:23 pm
There’s way too few armchair cranks.
A related phenomenon is the expert from a higher status, usually more quantitatively established discipline (usually physics) armchair crankishly entering another discipline. Often their crankish angle is some model more reductionist (sometimes comically so) than is currently used in the discipline.
I could probably quickly list over 100 positions for which there should be crankish advocates that don’t seem to exist, and if I were compensated, I think I could easily make a full time job out of it.
In my understanding a crank isn’t necessarily wrong, but if they’re right it’s probably by accident, not expertise and careful epistemology.
The difference between a crank and an eccentric -a crank has an underdeveloped contrarian position in a field with many expert thinkers. An eccentric is simply doing something different than the majority or large minorities, and is often deviant in many categories of social behavior.
January 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“AIPAC is strictly about American foreign policy. I don’t think it makes sense to compare it to standard ethnic activist groups.”
“I will say that it is much more acceptable for Jewish Americans to be ethnocentric than average white Americans, perhaps because Jewishness is not merely an ethnicity but also a religion.”
I think these are naive views of jewish americans and organizations in American society.
I think the reason it’s more acceptable for jewish americans to be both white and ethnocentric is that it’s sort of a gentrification of a social sweet spot. The jewish american social network successfully secured that spot for its advantages of both whiteness anti-stigma and minority cohesiveness.
I agree with whoever that it’s not infinitely advantageous to be a jewish american, and anyways the comment is more about the network than about the individual.
All things equal, I think being a secular Italian American man of roman catholic heritage, or a secular WASP American female is probably about the best ethnic religious combo one could hope for as an individual in the world, and its gendered, hence my distinction.
But as a social network, secular ashkenazi jewish americans are probably top three (being beaten only by wasp elite americans and anglo-ashki hybrid americans).
January 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I think the reason it’s more acceptable for jewish americans to be both white and ethnocentric
The conservative and Orthodox Jews are the ethnocentric ones not the liberal Jews.
Reform and especially nonaffiliated Jews are among the least ethnocentric of any white group.
January 8, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“Reform and especially nonaffiliated Jews are among the least ethnocentric of any white group.” Maybe ethnocentric is the wrong word, but I think your seizing on it for obfuscation, not enlightenmnet.
Secular ashkenazi jewish coordination seems high to me, and more powerful and higher status than religious jewish coordination.
Acknowledging that they form diverse alliances and can recite general multicultural normative narratives misses the point of the coordination, in my estimation, which seems to me to be to preserve, display, and enhance the status of the social network.
January 10, 2010 at 12:07 am
HA, could you give examples of experts crankishly entering other disciplines in an overreductionist manner? Also, a few of those 100 positions that could have crankish advocates but don’t.
Jolly Good Show:
“Third Position” has already been done. I’ve mentioned before how I often find it annoying when libertarians try to position themselves with respect to Dems/libs & Reps/cons. Same deal with fascism. It relies more on our dissatisfaction with the status quo than the appeal of their own proposals.
Or possibly Anglo-German Americans seem superficialy less cogniszant of their race because Anglo-German Protestantism is the cultural fulcrum every other white American group attempts to assimilate into?
That’s sort of what I was getting at.
The conservative and Orthodox Jews are the ethnocentric ones not the liberal Jews.
Yes, they are cosmopolitans. I think those who choose to can get away with more ethnocentrism though. It is perfectly acceptable for them to openly voice concerns about intermarriage, for example.
or he’s completely stupid
The only thing in the universe more plentiful than stupidity is hydrogen.
H.A:
In “Are Jews Generic?”, which I host here, Sowell discusses networking among Jews. He views it as more small-scale and family (perhaps “clan” would be the right word for some settings) based than something like a “greenbeard” effect.
You’ve talked about “gentrification of the moral high-ground” before. Could you elaborate on your conception of the gentrification metaphor?
All things equal, I think being a secular Italian American man of roman catholic heritage, or a secular WASP American female is probably about the best ethnic religious combo one could hope for as an individual in the world, and its gendered, hence my distinction.
Reminds me of this.
anglo-ashki hybrid americans
n/a has also been arguing against the meme of a hybrid WASP-Ashkenazi aristocracy, pointing out that Jews actually tend to marry Catholics. The term Sailer came up with was “Jeurasians“, contrasted with “Redblex”.
January 11, 2010 at 11:45 pm
The only reason I got branded a ‘crank’ was due to an Internet bully and his friends in a major transhumanist organization, who were lucky enough to secure moderator power on messageboards.
In my opinion most the views being pushed by the high-IQ types on the transhumanist lists are pure crackpottery, but I can’t say it without being moderated. You know its true. Just look at the recent survey of professional philosophers, which gave short-shift to crank political ideas like Libertarianism (highly favored by folks at OB and LW yet only supported by a tiny minority of political philosophers).
As to the crank views of the Bayesians, it’s just the old fallacy of Hume dressed up in modern language. As I’ve stated many times, categorization and analogical inference seems a more plausible foundation for science than Bayes. When the Bayesian paradigm collapses (as I’m very confident it will – likely before the end of 2016 or so), the entire flimsy house of cards of LW/OB community fan boys will come crashing down.
January 13, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I myself brand you a crank for your comments at OB.
You can rest assured that I will not engage in moderation here. You may spout to your heart’s content.
I put a lot less stock in the opinions of philosophers than Hanson does. Humorously enough, Caplan tried to cite the same evidence as support for (political) libertarianism.
What is “the fallacy of Hume”?
As I’ve stated many times
And been ignored or mocked many times.
I’m very confident it will – likely before the end of 2016 or so
You should place a bet with someone.
January 13, 2010 at 10:53 pm
>I put a lot less stock in the opinions of philosophers than Hanson does. Humorously enough, Caplan tried to cite the same evidence as support for (political) libertarianism.
It’s hard to see how the results could possibly be construed as anything other than a resounding rejection of Libertarianism.
I suspect the George Mason economics department are funded by big coporations to push Libertarian propoganda. Certainly its hard for me to believe that *they* honestly believe in the crap they are pushing.
>What is “the fallacy of Hume”?
I was referring to Humean skepticism about causality, namely the idea that cause and effect is reducible to mere ‘correlations’ between events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
“The notion of causation is closely linked to the problem of induction. According to Hume, we reason inductively by associating constantly conjoined events, and it is the mental act of association that is the basis of our concept of causation.”
This has been critizied by Stephen Pinker (‘The Stuff of Thought’) and Judea Pearl (see recent papers).
If causation is more than mere correlation, it is doubtful whether Bayesian Induction is capable of fully modelling it.
>You should place a bet with someone.
On ‘Prediction Book’ I gave 50-50 odds that Bayes would be shown to be a special case of categorization by 2014.
http://predictionbook.com/predictions/463
I think I was a bit over optimistic about the date there, but I’d be willing to bet at 50-50 odds that Bayes will be shown to be a special case of categorization by the end of 2016.
January 14, 2010 at 4:31 pm
It’s hard to see how the results could possibly be construed as anything other than a resounding rejection of Libertarianism.
His justification is the “Bayesian truth serum“.
I suspect the George Mason economics department are funded by big coporations to push Libertarian propoganda. Certainly its hard for me to believe that *they* honestly believe in the crap they are pushing.
I think it’s mostly just the Koch family. Most of them were already hardcore libertarians before they arrived at GMU. And if you think that people don’t spout radical libertarianism without being paid, you haven’t spent enough time at the Mises blog or any Ron Paul forum.
Causation is the reason Judea Pearl calls himself “half-Bayesian”. I don’t know if “recent” is the best word, he wrote his book on causality a decade ago. Eliezer seems to accept Pearl’s conception of causality for now, although he’s prepared to abandon it.
Kudos to you on making a prediction. It would probably have to be tightened up if money were to be put on it.
January 16, 2010 at 12:46 pm
mjgeddes,
What’s your level of (or capacity for) ironic detachment from self? TGGP’s level seems high, as does a lot of his cohort. Yours seems a little low to me.