Category Archives: Contributors

Researcher finds himself center of battle over GMOs and corporate support | InsideHigherEd

In case you’re wondering what all the hoopla is about.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/630459740930359296

The Nature article is based on thousands of pages of Folta’s emails, which were recently obtained by the anti-GMO group U.S. Right to Know via an open records request. Although Folta vehemently denies having “close ties” to Monsanto, he readily admits to another detail in the article: that in 2014 he accepted an unrestricted $25,000 grant from the company to further his active outreach agenda on scientific communication.Folta said that he visits colleges, universities and even elementary schools to talk a

Source: Researcher finds himself center of battle over GMOs and corporate support | InsideHigherEd
See Also: The Fight Over Transparency: Round Two

OUR PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

OUR PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The anti-GMO crowd got very excited that a pro-GMO activist who just graduated with a math PhD “attacked” our paper. It is the first comment by a “mathematician” which seems to be a big deal. Let us discuss here. Please ignore the technical in my answer.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/response.pdf

via: Facebook

Daniel Kahneman: ‘What would I eliminate if I had a magic wand? Overconfidence’ | The Guardian

Photograph: Richard Saker

“I’m far on the left of the spectrum in Israeli politics and always have been,” he says. “I hated the notion of occupation since the very beginning. My first memories from after the 67 war are travelling with my children in the occupied territories. There were awnings over groceries stores with Hebrew lettering advertising Osem noodles. I couldn’t bear it. I thought that was dreadful because I remembered German lettering in France. I have very strong feelings about Israel as an occupier.”Despite this, Kahneman has found it impossible to envisage a settlement that will satisfy both sides. “I don’t believe in the power of rational argument in this context,” he says, with an air of resignation. He mentions one occasion when he was visited at his university by a Palestinian academic after 67. They were getting on famously. But then “we tried to negotiate peace, and we failed, essentially on the right of return, which although obviously a legitimate demand among the Palestinians, means the destruction of Israel. So people who don’t want Israel destroyed cannot accept the right of return, even though they might understand that it has legitimacy behind it.”

Source: Daniel Kahneman: ‘What would I eliminate if I had a magic wand? Overconfidence’ | Books | The Guardian
HatTip to Dave Lull

Another ‘Too Big to Fail’ System in G.M.O.s | NY Times

Fifth, and what is most worrisome, is that the risk of G.M.O.s are more severe than those of finance. They can lead to complex chains of unpredictable changes in the ecosystem, while the methods of risk management with G.M.O.s — unlike finance, where some effort was made — are not even primitive.

The G.M.O. experiment, carried out in real time and with our entire food and ecological system as its laboratory, is perhaps the greatest case of human hubris ever. It creates yet another systemic, “too big too fail” enterprise — but one for which no bailouts will be possible when it fails.

Source: Another ‘Too Big to Fail’ System in G.M.O.s

PSEUDO EMPIRICISM

PSEUDO_EMPIRICISM Another way to look at the problem of BS trying to pass for “empiricism”, or “evidence-based science”.
– When one discusses events related to a casino roulette wheel, one can easily make a distinction between realizations and the property of the roulette wheel. Anyone can see that it is highly irrational to make comments and build theories on past history, except *in their relation to* the properties of the roulette table –otherwise, one is fooled by randomness, or committing the gambler’s fallacy.
– When discussing a given history of gambles and making claims, we know *exactly* whether we are referring to the *outcomes* from the roulette wheel or to the roulette wheel.
– Now in real life, when we talk about *crime*, or incidence of *ebola*, or such things, alas, we use the same word “crime” or “victims” to refer to both the realizations (i.e., the history of the process) and the *generator* or what here is equivalent to the roulette wheel. Verbalistic effects cause us to conflate the two.
– But when we write down things mathematically, we clearly see that one is called “random variable”, the other is called “realization” so mathematically the two are separate. When we discuss series of random variables we talk about “stochastic process”. Analytical claims are always made about the random variable or the process, not the realization.
– What I have just illustrated seems simple. But, alas, many people make fallacies and we have to fight journalistic imbeciles and social scientists conflating past history of, say Ebola with its properties. (More technically, the history of Ebola is NOT an empirical claim about its properties, except that they correspond if and only if the process has thin tails.)
PS- Which brings me to the value of mathematics: its value lies less in the computation, the numbers, than in the use of clear-cut definitions that avoid sloppiness of language. I see mathematics, particularly in probability, close to legal theory, where everything is as explicitly defined as possible. When things are well defined, their relations (or lack of) become immediable visible.

via: Facebook