Interesting analogy by Taleb (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
Of course there are some that solely invest in stocks people promote on CNBC. But those are people that don't know what they're doing, hence why they make decisions that follow suit.
I would say at most 25% of people who use that "strategy" make a good profit, the rest break even or lose money. Like Martin said, it is associated with risk, and basically playing the lottery if CNBC is used as a technical indicator.
So it's safe to say the atheists who use CNBC as a technical indicator are indeed hypocrites. But those who do their own analysis based on history are not.
Must say, lost a lot of respect for Taleb after this nonsense.
I would say at most 25% of people who use that "strategy" make a good profit, the rest break even or lose money. Like Martin said, it is associated with risk, and basically playing the lottery if CNBC is used as a technical indicator.
So it's safe to say the atheists who use CNBC as a technical indicator are indeed hypocrites. But those who do their own analysis based on history are not.
Must say, lost a lot of respect for Taleb after this nonsense.
The way he could have made the argument a little more sensical would be to replace stocks with either home values or derivative products. Many people took a leap of faith by borrowing money, purchasing a house that was too expensive for their means, and then becoming unable to repay the loan. Then you have these bankers packaging these mortgages together as some sort of bond, trying to sell them to unsuspecting people who believe in the Triple A rating given to these bonds by the same psychos in cahoots, then finding out what they purchased is worth nothing. Exploding bonds. Not worth anything. They bought into stuff that was sold to them as a lie. That's the real blind faith.
But to use stocks as an example? No, just... no. Taleb should know that trading is based on history and statistics, probability that one can calculate, not random blind picking because somebody likes the ideas of one company.
But to use stocks as an example? No, just... no. Taleb should know that trading is based on history and statistics, probability that one can calculate, not random blind picking because somebody likes the ideas of one company.
1. Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven.
False, because every mathematical theorem has to be proven to be accepted. The same with logic. Math is proven with math, not physics. The fact that you cannot test math by throwing a ball and calculating the distance doesn't mean mathematical propositions cannot be proven. The Pythagorean theorem is proven, noone is suspicious of it.
2. Metaphysical truths.
- There are other minds, other than my own.
If I conduct a conversation with someone isn't that proof of a second mind?
- The external world is real.
What does "real" mean? In what way might it be not be real? Like in the Matrix? I would say it can either be real (in whatever sense of the word) or it can be an imitation so good as to be perceived as real. In either case, what does it matter? Something not real indistinguishable from real is what? Well, real.
- The past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age.
Well, I was here 10 minutes ago, and the history books said back then what they say right now. I've no idea what he's trying to prove with this one.
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value. You can't show whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil versus the scientists in Western democracies.
Ethical judgments are measured in suffering. If you make someone suffer, it is not ethical (how could it be?). So it is easy to show that someone is ethical or not.
4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method, because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
First, there is no objective truth about what is beautiful or not. That alone is enough to dismiss it, it's not a universal truth. But going further, music is basically mathematical patterns in sound. And musical scientists have studied music, considering the various possibilities of chords and harmonies possible. It turns out that the human ear only "likes" some of these, and these have been reused over and over again in the course of musical history. We may not yet know why we find those harmonies soothing, but perhaps one day we will, when we've learned more about the brain. So to "prove" that something is beautiful I don't know, but certainly it is "accessible to the scientific method".
5. Science itself. Science itself cannot be justified. The speed of light in the theory of relativity.
I don't know what point he's making. Is it about science or about the theory of relativity?
Science itself can be proven. The principle is you observe a pattern, you perform experiment, and you find out something. There is no difficulty in testing the method of science to see whether it produces results that are true of the world. No better test, in fact, to observe that buildings stay up, bridges hold, airplanes don't crash. What better proof could you possibly want?
As for scientific propositions that cannot seem to be proven, that's not a flaw of science, it's our lack of advancement in science. Science is based on finding formulas that time after time give the right results. The fact that you cannot strictly test everything in those formulas is a flaw, but it does not change the fact that these calculations, performed constantly, produce the right results, even with some measure of internal uncertainty.
False, because every mathematical theorem has to be proven to be accepted. The same with logic. Math is proven with math, not physics. The fact that you cannot test math by throwing a ball and calculating the distance doesn't mean mathematical propositions cannot be proven. The Pythagorean theorem is proven, noone is suspicious of it.
2. Metaphysical truths.
- There are other minds, other than my own.
If I conduct a conversation with someone isn't that proof of a second mind?
- The external world is real.
What does "real" mean? In what way might it be not be real? Like in the Matrix? I would say it can either be real (in whatever sense of the word) or it can be an imitation so good as to be perceived as real. In either case, what does it matter? Something not real indistinguishable from real is what? Well, real.
- The past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age.
Well, I was here 10 minutes ago, and the history books said back then what they say right now. I've no idea what he's trying to prove with this one.
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value. You can't show whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil versus the scientists in Western democracies.
Ethical judgments are measured in suffering. If you make someone suffer, it is not ethical (how could it be?). So it is easy to show that someone is ethical or not.
4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method, because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
First, there is no objective truth about what is beautiful or not. That alone is enough to dismiss it, it's not a universal truth. But going further, music is basically mathematical patterns in sound. And musical scientists have studied music, considering the various possibilities of chords and harmonies possible. It turns out that the human ear only "likes" some of these, and these have been reused over and over again in the course of musical history. We may not yet know why we find those harmonies soothing, but perhaps one day we will, when we've learned more about the brain. So to "prove" that something is beautiful I don't know, but certainly it is "accessible to the scientific method".
5. Science itself. Science itself cannot be justified. The speed of light in the theory of relativity.
I don't know what point he's making. Is it about science or about the theory of relativity?
Science itself can be proven. The principle is you observe a pattern, you perform experiment, and you find out something. There is no difficulty in testing the method of science to see whether it produces results that are true of the world. No better test, in fact, to observe that buildings stay up, bridges hold, airplanes don't crash. What better proof could you possibly want?
As for scientific propositions that cannot seem to be proven, that's not a flaw of science, it's our lack of advancement in science. Science is based on finding formulas that time after time give the right results. The fact that you cannot strictly test everything in those formulas is a flaw, but it does not change the fact that these calculations, performed constantly, produce the right results, even with some measure of internal uncertainty.
I agree with him for the most part, but he demonizes statistics as if statistics do not tell the truth. Well, it does tell the truth. If the probability of an event is .99 and you allocate 50,000 USD towards this investment, you assume the risk of 0.01 that the net return will be negative. If that 0.01 chance occurs, you're shit out of luck. People may not understand statistic measures, they may regard it as lies, but when we apply it to business it usually gives us a decent grasp of the situation.
Perhaps it's because he is a not a native speaker, but he's seemingly trying to mislead the audience that the problem is statistics, not what people make out of those statistics. We have to be spot on here. If people do not know what the statistics mean, of course it will be useless and cause problems. But statistics, when used properly and processed correctly, are usually good indicators of risk and in reality all we have to go upon. So, I think he should be blaming the investment psycho bankers for misusing the statistics, not the actual science.
It's all there in the open for all to see. A probability of .99 is not a probability of 1. But people disregard that info and take unhedged bets, ending up in positions such as Morgan Stanley long in a billion USD worth of credit default swaps they couldn't offload before the collapse of the bubble.
Perhaps it's because he is a not a native speaker, but he's seemingly trying to mislead the audience that the problem is statistics, not what people make out of those statistics. We have to be spot on here. If people do not know what the statistics mean, of course it will be useless and cause problems. But statistics, when used properly and processed correctly, are usually good indicators of risk and in reality all we have to go upon. So, I think he should be blaming the investment psycho bankers for misusing the statistics, not the actual science.
It's all there in the open for all to see. A probability of .99 is not a probability of 1. But people disregard that info and take unhedged bets, ending up in positions such as Morgan Stanley long in a billion USD worth of credit default swaps they couldn't offload before the collapse of the bubble.
Oh, and Taleb is right about Paulson and Bernanke being a catalyst for the problem. With the former, it's like letting Charles Manson out of jail and appointing him to solve the murder rate problem in Los Angeles, or appointing him as the secretary of human sanity.
While on the other hand, Bernanke just wants to devaluate the dollar to try to "stimulate" the economy.
Talking about faith... what the fuck? People have faith in these guys?
Having faith in God is nothing compared to having faith in these people. I mean, Paulson created this whole mess while at Goldman Sachs. Yet people trust him with our money.
While on the other hand, Bernanke just wants to devaluate the dollar to try to "stimulate" the economy.
Talking about faith... what the fuck? People have faith in these guys?
Having faith in God is nothing compared to having faith in these people. I mean, Paulson created this whole mess while at Goldman Sachs. Yet people trust him with our money.
1) They can only be proven by theory, but they cannot be proven by evidence. I think he's talking about more complex mathematical theorems than the Pythagorean theorem.
2) Yes, you know that the other person has a mind yet you cannot prove it. You are speaking to this person and you have good reason to believe that this person, like you, has a mind of his/her own, but you cannot prove it.
3) I don't follow your reasoning here.
4) If you see a beautiful girl walking on the street. You just know she is drop dead gorgeous but you cannot prove it. Science cannot prove she is beautiful either.
5) I don't know exactly what he means here, but I think he means that in theories such as Einstein's theory of relativity, you cannot put this theory into literal practice. You can merely assume it to be correct.
2) Yes, you know that the other person has a mind yet you cannot prove it. You are speaking to this person and you have good reason to believe that this person, like you, has a mind of his/her own, but you cannot prove it.
3) I don't follow your reasoning here.
4) If you see a beautiful girl walking on the street. You just know she is drop dead gorgeous but you cannot prove it. Science cannot prove she is beautiful either.
5) I don't know exactly what he means here, but I think he means that in theories such as Einstein's theory of relativity, you cannot put this theory into literal practice. You can merely assume it to be correct.
Math and logic does not operate on the same plane as natural sciences. In physics you do experiments and check if they correspond to the theory. This is the only way to learn something in physics. In math you can do the same, but mathematical proofs are not like this, they prove something definitely, forever. Math does not need empirical proof, it is a logical system which is internally inconsistent. To say that science cannot "prove" math is to misunderstand what math is. Can you envisage any situation in which two persons joined by another person will not count as three persons? No, because this is true by definition.
It is the same as say English grammar. Can science "prove" that English grammar is correct? No, because it is just a system of rules we came up with ourselves. And it happens to describe the English language well. As such, it requires no other "proof".
Or take the FIFA rules of football. Can you prove that they are correct? No, there is no such thing. We made them up, we can change them at any time. And the players will have to follow suit. Does that mean religion is necessary to explain football?
Sure you can, you can crack the skull open and find a brain inside. You can measure electrical impulses in the brain, neurologists do it all the time.
If you do something unethical, why is it unethical (call someone a name)? Is it because god told you it is? No, it's unethical because you are causing someone to suffer from your actions. That is what ethics is all about.
Science can prove that I think she is beautiful by doing brain scans of my brain when I see her and observing that the neurological patterns are the same or similar to those observed when I look at something else beautiful. Science can also examine my physiological responses, my heart rate, breathing rate, sweating (
), whatever you want to measure. All of which will be consistent with my bodily response to a beautiful woman.
Science cannot prove that she is beautiful to everyone, because there is no such thing.
Every scientific theory is attempted to be proven. Sometimes the experiment is so difficult that we cannot try it. It does not stop us from trying. In CERN there is a giant particle accelerator which may help explain a lot of things about quantum physics we don't know yet.
A scientific theory cannot be said to be wrong if it hasn't been proven wrong, if no experiment is available. Nor can it said to be wrong. Yet. It's just waiting to be verified. That in itself is not a flaw of science.
It is the same as say English grammar. Can science "prove" that English grammar is correct? No, because it is just a system of rules we came up with ourselves. And it happens to describe the English language well. As such, it requires no other "proof".
Or take the FIFA rules of football. Can you prove that they are correct? No, there is no such thing. We made them up, we can change them at any time. And the players will have to follow suit. Does that mean religion is necessary to explain football?
Sure you can, you can crack the skull open and find a brain inside. You can measure electrical impulses in the brain, neurologists do it all the time.
If you do something unethical, why is it unethical (call someone a name)? Is it because god told you it is? No, it's unethical because you are causing someone to suffer from your actions. That is what ethics is all about.
Science can prove that I think she is beautiful by doing brain scans of my brain when I see her and observing that the neurological patterns are the same or similar to those observed when I look at something else beautiful. Science can also examine my physiological responses, my heart rate, breathing rate, sweating (
), whatever you want to measure. All of which will be consistent with my bodily response to a beautiful woman. Science cannot prove that she is beautiful to everyone, because there is no such thing.
Every scientific theory is attempted to be proven. Sometimes the experiment is so difficult that we cannot try it. It does not stop us from trying. In CERN there is a giant particle accelerator which may help explain a lot of things about quantum physics we don't know yet.
A scientific theory cannot be said to be wrong if it hasn't been proven wrong, if no experiment is available. Nor can it said to be wrong. Yet. It's just waiting to be verified. That in itself is not a flaw of science.
1-Sure you can, you can crack the skull open and find a brain inside. You can measure electrical impulses in the brain, neurologists do it all the time.
2-If you do something unethical, why is it unethical (call someone a name)? Is it because god told you it is? No, it's unethical because you are causing someone to suffer from your actions. That is what ethics is all about.
3-Science can prove that I think she is beautiful by doing brain scans of my brain when I see her and observing that the neurological patterns are the same or similar to those observed when I look at something else beautiful. Science can also examine my physiological responses, my heart rate, breathing rate, sweating ( ), whatever you want to measure. All of which will be consistent with my bodily response to a beautiful woman.
Science cannot prove that she is beautiful to everyone, because there is no such thing.
2-If you do something unethical, why is it unethical (call someone a name)? Is it because god told you it is? No, it's unethical because you are causing someone to suffer from your actions. That is what ethics is all about.
3-Science can prove that I think she is beautiful by doing brain scans of my brain when I see her and observing that the neurological patterns are the same or similar to those observed when I look at something else beautiful. Science can also examine my physiological responses, my heart rate, breathing rate, sweating (
), whatever you want to measure. All of which will be consistent with my bodily response to a beautiful woman. Science cannot prove that she is beautiful to everyone, because there is no such thing.
2- If you were in desperate need for money and you begged your brother to help you and give you a couple of thousand dollars so you can get your self together. Your brother agrees and then goes away. It would be unethical to spend that money on drinks and hookers, but it is not causing harm to anyone is it? Now, you lied to your brother and you know it is unethical, however, he is not getting hurt.
3- Perhaps the heavy breathing and sweating may just suggest that you are afraid of her or perhaps even angered by her. It still cannot prove you think she is beautiful.
What then?
Proving that a mind exist is not the same as proving that a memory exists.
Sure it is, you're lying to him. And even if you say he'll never find out there's always a chance he will, and then he'll be hurt. On the other hand, if it turns out he's not hurt, then it wasn't unethical.
Sure it can. If my responses to this woman are the same as they are to some other beautiful woman, then that's all the proof you need.
Proving that a mind exist is not the same as proving that a memory exists.
Sure it is, you're lying to him. And even if you say he'll never find out there's always a chance he will, and then he'll be hurt. On the other hand, if it turns out he's not hurt, then it wasn't unethical.
Sure it can. If my responses to this woman are the same as they are to some other beautiful woman, then that's all the proof you need.