Interesting analogy by Taleb (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
No, that wasn't the point. You saw the video right? Remember the two pictures he illustrated, one of the bishops in church, and the other of CNBC stock analysts? That's the analogy he's making. He's simply saying that atheists are being inconsistent with their beliefs since listening to a stock analyst on his view on the stock market and then basing your faith on his remarks are really no different than a theist basing his beliefs on what a bishop has to say. They are just different forms of faith.
Well, it's a pretty weak argument then. We take faith in all sorts of things, such as the police protecting us, or the safety of crossing the street during a red light. Perhaps we shouldn't cross the street all together.
Some people use technical indicators to invest or trade, indicators based on statistics, which usually tend to be true. Many of these indicators are based on history, as in stuff that has already been proven true, so I don't really see how all investors are hypocrites.
One could relate anything to anything. Relating stocks to pretty much the most profound question in life is somewhat demeaning to the God theory, at least in my view.
Some people use technical indicators to invest or trade, indicators based on statistics, which usually tend to be true. Many of these indicators are based on history, as in stuff that has already been proven true, so I don't really see how all investors are hypocrites.
One could relate anything to anything. Relating stocks to pretty much the most profound question in life is somewhat demeaning to the God theory, at least in my view.
Come on, anybody who knows what they're doing creates their own trading strategy, not listen to the morons on CNBC.
Actually, some do, but they end up doing the opposite of what people such as Jim Cramer tell them to do, usually making a profit. It's like your bishop telling you to not whack off on the guy you just murdered, but you end up murdering the guy and whacking off on his chest, then becoming better off from it.
What does that prove? Nothing.
But Taleb can do better than this.
Actually, some do, but they end up doing the opposite of what people such as Jim Cramer tell them to do, usually making a profit. It's like your bishop telling you to not whack off on the guy you just murdered, but you end up murdering the guy and whacking off on his chest, then becoming better off from it.
What does that prove? Nothing.
But Taleb can do better than this.
Weak analogy indeed. Stock investment is not done by rolling a die, or listening to what some random person says is gonna happen. It's an analysis of historical stock value, and a knowledge of what the companies are you're investing in and what condition they're in.
If he said playing the lottery with the numbers a psychic tells you to use, that would have been a closer analogy. But the stock market isn't the lottery, it's not random. Unpredictable, yes. Random, no.
The weather forecast is often wrong too. But again, it's not random.
For an academic to say such a lame thing is kind of embarrassing.
EDIT: Actually, there's another way in which is this is wrong. Stock investment is associated with risk. It's like gambling, you know full well that you're not making a safe choice. Which is not much religion is it, religion isn't associated with risk, people generally feel safe about their choices.
If he said playing the lottery with the numbers a psychic tells you to use, that would have been a closer analogy. But the stock market isn't the lottery, it's not random. Unpredictable, yes. Random, no.
The weather forecast is often wrong too. But again, it's not random.
For an academic to say such a lame thing is kind of embarrassing.
EDIT: Actually, there's another way in which is this is wrong. Stock investment is associated with risk. It's like gambling, you know full well that you're not making a safe choice. Which is not much religion is it, religion isn't associated with risk, people generally feel safe about their choices.
'Nassim's analogy is based on a long tradition of thought that views induction as a faulty way of knowing, and thus views authority based on induction as being every bit as unreliable as authority based on faith. Simply put, stock brokers argue the general from the specific. So do scientists. People take their cues from these authorities in the same way religious people take cues from clergy'.
If I repeat an experiment 1000 times and every time the result is the same, am I unreasonable to think the result will be repeated?
Yes, it's a form of faith, but it's very well substantiated faith. It has nothing to do with the faith in an eternal life noone has ever confirmed.
If we never had faith in anything we wouldn't be able to make much progress in life, would we? Constantly worried that meteorite might hit any second.
Yes, it's a form of faith, but it's very well substantiated faith. It has nothing to do with the faith in an eternal life noone has ever confirmed.
If we never had faith in anything we wouldn't be able to make much progress in life, would we? Constantly worried that meteorite might hit any second.
I see what you're getting at. Bit you have to consider a situation where an atheist who knows nothing about historical stock value or stock knowledge for that matter listens to a stock analyst and invests according to what this analyst has to say. I think it is that leap of faith he is criticizing.
And Andy, let's not fool ourselves here. There are plenty of people that would blindly base their investment on a CNBC analyst. In fact, he said he would conduct a survey of some sort. I thought that would be very interesting.
Yes, but if you ask a guy for directions, should you believe him or not? You can't mistrust everything all the time. Hopefully this guy doesn't invest all his savings according to the CNBC pundit. Or if he does once he's not gonna do it again. But these are all experiments that can be performed, and repeated. It's very easy to test if someone is reliable.
I get that people like this Taleb guy are trying to find analogies of religious faith in the world, but there just aren't many.
I get that people like this Taleb guy are trying to find analogies of religious faith in the world, but there just aren't many.
Atheists have faith in things that have been shown by experiment. Only those things.
If someone came up to you and told you that there is a ninja living in your house, so stealthy and skillful that you've never seen him, yet he absolutely is there, observing your every move, would you believe this? Would it require faith to refute this? Refuting something for which there is no evidence requires no faith, it is trivial.
If someone came up to you and told you that there is a ninja living in your house, so stealthy and skillful that you've never seen him, yet he absolutely is there, observing your every move, would you believe this? Would it require faith to refute this? Refuting something for which there is no evidence requires no faith, it is trivial.