e-book Little Moron [nn]

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Little Moron [nn] file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Little Moron [nn] book. Happy reading Little Moron [nn] Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Little Moron [nn] at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Little Moron [nn] Pocket Guide.
Little Moron [nn] eBook: One Shot Publishers: leondumoulin.nl: Kindle Store.
Table of contents

Taleb has, in fact, written real papers with collaborators such as Philip Tetlock.

Maryada Ramanna Telugu Full Movie - Sunil, Saloni, SS Rajamouli

So it is indeed strange that he fails to make the difference. In Taleb's latest book he mentions a little trick he played on academics: [27] basically, he created a bunch of nonsense in abstruse mathematics just to highlight what fools they are. Here's his description of this work in Antifragile:. Remarkably—as has been shown—if you can say something straightforward in a complicated manner with complex theorems, even if there is no large gain in rigor from these complicated equations, people take the idea very seriously. The paper was presumably accepted by Quantitative Finance, a journal where Taleb often publishes and seems highly favorable towards his work.

DNA Test Reveals Donald Trump, Jr., Is Fifty Per Cent Idiot

This seems identical to the infamous hoax by Alan Sokal, a physics professor who submitted an intentionally meaningless article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. However, Sokal was mocking the journal and its readers by publishing self-acknowledged gibberish. Taleb's mocking his biggest fans 'stupid', he calls them. Odds are, the journal editor won't find this very amusing.

For the past few years, Taleb has accused Steven Pinker of being blindly optimistic about the future. Steven Pinker largely ignored Taleb's baiting, only replying in depth to his allegations in a PDF published on his own website. Taleb shows no signs of having read Better Angels with the slightest attention to its content. Instead he has merged it in his mind with claims by various fools and knaves whom he believes he has bettered in the past. The book spends many pages arguing the exact opposite. The goal of this book is to explain the facts of the past and present, not to augur the hypotheticals of the future.

Still, you might ask, isn't it the essence of science to make falsifiable predictions? Shouldn't any claim to understanding the past be evaluated by its ability to extrapolate into the future? Oh, all right. I predict that the chance that a major episode of violence will break out in the next decade--a conflict with , deaths in a year, or a million deaths overall--is 9.

How did I come up with that number? Well, it's small enough to capture the intuition "probably not," but not so small that if such an event did occur I would be shown to be flat-out wrong. My point, of course, is that the concept of scientific prediction is meaningless when it comes to a single event--in this case, the eruption of mass violence in the next decade.

It would be another thing if we could watch many worlds unfold and tot up the number in which an event happened or did not, but this is the only world we've got.

Gary Cohn Thinks You’d Have To Be a “Moron” To Pay the Estate Tax

The truth is, I don't know what will happen across the entire world in the coming decades, and neither does anyone else. It was written in a fairly humorous tone. This prompted several interventions by Taleb and one by Sam Harris. Taleb main point was that Pinker is a "charlatan" because he tweeted a blog post instead of relying on "peer-review science" to address Taleb's views:.

What Taleb didn't seem to consider was that the tweeting of a blog post does not preclude a positive scientific appraisal of Pinker's ideas. Most likely, Pinker just doesn't consider Taleb's opinions worthy of anything more than, in Taleb's own words, the blog post of an "unskilled bank employee finance troll". There are legitimate things to gripe with Pinker over, but Taleb's way of going about things is rather counterproductive. Sam Harris: sapinker Are you are man enough to witness his genius in full flower?

I doubt it. The debate itself is worth watching, the full panel featuring Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett new atheists vs. Excerpts of Taleb's interventions can be found on YouTube. There are other videos that help us understand his view of religion.

Gary Cohn Thinks You’d Have To Be a “Moron” To Pay the Estate Tax | Vanity Fair

In his view, religion is a repository of useful heuristics that help people in making good decisions in situations where there is incomplete information about the world situations of opacity. He claims that religion does not itself generate these heuristics, just that the stories get built around the rituals and are thus a mnemonic device.

Invoking the Lindy effect , he claims that since it's been around for a long time, it must be doing something right. Is his view true? Even assuming the idea that religion served useful purposes, this does not automatically guide us in knowing what those are. But Taleb seems to think he knows, he even points out such cases whenever he can find them.

He is an Orthodox Christian, and in Orthodoxy there is lots of fasting. When recent scientific developments came to show the advantages of "intermittent fasting", Taleb saw it as an example of "religion knew it all along". He never explains how one should draw these conclusions, but seems satisfied with automatically assuming that identifying the "hidden wisdom of religion" is never a result of coincidence and our own cognitive biases. In his "Antifragile" book he confirms this stance, that religion is "not true" but it must be useful since it must have survived by giving societies an edge:.

English parents controlled children with the false narrative that if they didn't behave or eat their dinner, Boney Napoleon Bonaparte or some wild animal might come and take them away. Religions often use the equivalent method to help adults get out of trouble, or avoid debt. Consider the role of heuristic rule-of-thumb knowledge embedded in traditions.

Customer reviews

Simply, just as evolution operates on individuals, so does it act on these tacit, unexplainable rules of thumb transmitted through generations--what Karl Popper has called evolutionary epistemology. Is his view original? Taleb's trademark is that he makes the most banal ideas that other people have known about for ages seem like the best thing since sliced bread, original insights that nobody has thought about before. For one thing, it ignores a centuries-long debate about the source of ethical belief.

Does religion directly create moral views, or does it only codify and reinforce morality that flows from secular springs?

Not only is Taleb's view not groundbreaking, it has been debated for centuries and it is known in New Atheist circles. Taleb claims New Atheists misunderstand religion by making it all about belief. He describes a hypothetical Dawkins or Pinker in a cinema, yelling "that's not real blood, it's tomato juice" presumably looking like fools, and annoying everyone else who just "gets it". In reality, several New Atheists have made points that contradict Taleb's accusation. Sam Harris is actively exploring the parts of Eastern thought that are compatible with and beneficial to secular people.

Alain de Botton has written a book on the topic, "Religion for Atheists". Richard Dawkins has described himself as a "cultural Christian". Is religion all about decisions and too little about belief? A huge chunk of the religious certainly don't seem to think so. There are secular Jews, but most religious people do not resemble secular Jews. If religion is supposed to be all about decisions and not about faith, who can guarantee that the faith part doesn't affect the result? Even if Taleb's point was true, Taleb's own theories would mark religion as "fragile", since the faith part is the one that makes religion so controversial in the first part.

Since Taleb believes religion is not actually about belief, but about heuristics and decision-making, his stance is that science does not contradict religion. Anything religion says about specific claims in holy texts is superfluous, since all that doesn't matter anyway, what matters is how religion helps people in dealing with day to day life. For example, Taleb says religion helps people accept that the world contains unknowns: people find it hard to say "I don't know", but easier to say "God knows". Another example he gives is of situations where no choice is clearly better than another: an ancient Greek might go visit an oracle, and thus randomize the choice and save precious time and effort that might have been wasted by over-analyzing it.

One problem with Taleb's view is that those benefits themselves can be subject to scientific scrutiny. And science might confirm or disprove a specific benefit attributed to religion. Or science might come up with alternative heuristics -- this is, in fact, the whole point of Sam Harris' book on morality. Another problem is that his general position is pretty much unfalsifiable, so it has to be accepted on a gut feeling that things just are that way.

Some benefits of religion might be confirmed, others might be disproven, but the theory is compatible with all evidence. Taleb believes the pre-Enlightenment world was wiser, because it had the tools to deal with uncertainty, while the Enlightenment thinkers thought they could implement large scale, top-down social change on the basis of rationality. His full argument is that traditional belief systems provided people the tools to deal with the non-linearities of the world everything that can't be "rationally planned" , and that the "rationalistic" movement New Atheism included only brought forth a naive, unrealistic, and potentially destructive attitude about the world, enabling a large potential for harm, because people believe they understand and control more than they really can understand and control.

He initiated the exchange by claiming Tyson is just an entertainer:. The cause of the feud seems to have been an article about "What science is and how and why it works" by Tyson.