Tag Archives: GMOs

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

RATIONALITY IS SURVIVAL: Why belief in Santa Claus can be more rational than disbelief

RATIONALITY IS SURVIVAL: Why belief in Santa Claus can be more rational than disbelief; why we never know what is a priori rational.

Consider religious dietary laws. They may seem irrational to an observer who sees purpose in things and defines rationality in terms of what he can explain. Actually they will most certainly seem so. The Jewish Kashrut prescibes keeping four sets of dishes, two sinks, the avoidance of mixing meat with dairy products or merely letting the two be in contact with each other, in addition to interdicts on some animals: shrimp, pork, etc.

These laws might have had an \textit{ex ante} purpose. One can blame insalubrious behavior of pigs, exacerbated by the heat in the Levant (though heat in the Levant was not markedly different from that in pig-eating areas further West). But it remains that whatever the purpose, the Kashrut survived $\approx$ three millennia not because of its \textit{rationality} but because the populations that followed it survived. It brought cohesion: people who eat together hang together. Simply it aided those that survived because it is a convex heuristic (see our definition of convex heuristic in \ref{convheu}). Such group cohesion might be also responsible for trust in commercial transactions with remote members of the community. Simply, people who eat together hang together and dietary laws help in enforcing a group cohesion.

This adumbrates our central idea: that rationality is not what has conscious verbalistic explanatory factors; it only be what aids survival, avoids ruin. Rationality is risk management, period.

The consequence is that beliefs should not be judged on whether they are epistemologically true or false, but primarily in whether they allow survival [IN THE COLLECTIVE, and IN THE LINDY SENSE]. Belief in Santa Claus is therefore rational if it prevents people from dying and not rational if they cause extinction.

Take the idea to its logical conclusion. Superstitious-like resistance to matters like GMOs might be the instrument of enforcing such survival.

www.fooledbyrandomness.com/rationality.pdf

via RATIONALITY IS SURVIVAL: Why belief in Santa… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Fallacy of mechanistic statistics in risk debates…

Fallacy of mechanistic statistics in risk debates:
If we wanted planes to be safe “with statistical significance” that is 99% confidence level we’d have between 400 and 2500 crashes a day.The point is that risk management uses a much much higher degree of rigor than statistics, something GMO-idiots are not getting.

via Fallacy of mechanistic statistics in risk… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Precautionary Principle and Genetically Modified Organisms | EconTalk

Russ Roberts
Hosted by Russ Roberts

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of Antifragile, Black Swan, and Fooled by Randomness, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about a recent co-authored paper on the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the use of the Precautionary Principle. Taleb contrasts harm with ruin and explains how the differences imply different rules of behavior when dealing with the risk of each. Taleb argues that when considering the riskiness of GMOs, the right understanding of statistics is more valuable than expertise in biology or genetics. The central issue that pervades the conversation is how to cope with a small non-negligible risk of catastrophe.

Time: 1:07:37
Size:31.0 MB
Right-click or Option-click, and select “Save Link/Target As MP3.

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Precautionary Principle and Genetically Modified Organisms | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty.

The GMO plot thickens, in a funny way…

The GMO plot thickens, in a funny way. I thought that the GMO “experts” are making errors in logic and risk but I realize they do not understand their own claims in their research and contradict them. Many are critical on our focus on “absence of evidence” as “nonscientific” yet their own work is based on this approach (that is, put the weight on the side of absence of evidence)… I repeat, in their own works. Their papers need to abide by a certain statistical procedure yet most don’t know what it is about. Looks like they hire some staff person to process data or use some computer.

For standard statistical theory doesn’t allow “acceptance”, it only allows “failure to reject”. Even when someone in prose says “accept that” he mathematically means “failed to reject at…”. Similarly, when someone is indicted, he is treated as innocent unless proven otherwise. This principle is adopted by scientific journals (remember that statisticians are the “evidence” police). This is a big thing and it is ironic.

The fact that statistics is hard for scientists AND they need to use it (as part of their own canon) means they rely on computers or some statistician who happens to be passing by… We mentioned that >50% of published neurobiology papers in “prestigious” journals making comparisons make an elementary (but severe) statistical mistake. But it looks like things are a lot, a lot worse.

P.S. As I show in SILENT RISK, acceptance can be done but it needs to be nonprobabilistic s.a. “there exists at least one black swan as I have seen one”. As such it is never part of hypothesis testing.

via The GMO plot thickens, in a funny way. I thought… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.