jm + nassim-taleb   2

Beard vs Taleb: Scientism and the Nature of Historical Inquiry
The most interesting aspect of this Twitter war is that it is representative of a malaise that has stricken a good chunk of academics (mostly scientists, with a peppering of philosophers) and an increasing portion of the general public: scientism.

I have co-edited an entire book, due out soon, on the topic, which features authors who are pro, con, and somewhere in the middle. Scientism is defined as the belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc., of the natural sciences are the only ways to gather valuable knowledge or to answer meaningful questions. Everything else, to paraphrase Taleb, is bullshit.

Does Taleb engage in scientism? Indubitably. I have already mentioned above his generalization from what one particular historian (Beard) said to “historians” tout court. But there is more, from his Twitter feed: “there is this absence of intellectual rigor in humanities.” “Are historians idiots? Let’s be polite and say that they are in the majority no rocket scientists and operate under a structural bias. It looks like an empirically rigorous view of historiography is missing.”
history  science  scientism  nassim-taleb  argument  debate  proof  romans  britain  mary-beard 
august 2017 by jm
Nassim Taleb: retire Standard Deviation
Use the mean absolute deviation [...] it corresponds to "real life" much better than the first—and to reality. In fact, whenever people make decisions after being supplied with the standard deviation number, they act as if it were the expected mean deviation.'

Graydon Hoare in turn recommends the median absolute deviation. I prefer percentiles, anyway ;)
statistics  standard-deviation  stddev  maths  nassim-taleb  deviation  volatility  rmse  distributions 
january 2014 by jm

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: