Category: A Rationale
Posted by: Admin
Philosophy may be too broad a term for the specific interest I have in the Philosophy of explanation and knowledge, ways of reasoning, means for thinking about content and process, as well as making sense of rights, duties and obligations. Since business and life involves reasoning and knowledge, learning about these phenomena is indispensable for me....
Category: Problems in explanation
Posted by: Admin
In the layman’s world Stephen Hawking is best renowned for his relatively succinct and easy to understand descriptions and explanations of the darker of the mysteries of physics and cosmology. This latest work is his update of such matters and comes nearly a decade after his last publication.
Up there with his “Short History of Time” and other like works this relatively slim volume ("The Grand Design" Bantum Books, London, 2011) is...
Up there with his “Short History of Time” and other like works this relatively slim volume ("The Grand Design" Bantum Books, London, 2011) is...
It has frequently been observed that things we learn which are "wrong" are a stumbling block to quality understanding... Matt Ridley - author of "The Rational Optimist" explains.
MIND & MATTER WSJ
FEBRUARY 5, 2011
By MATT RIDLEY
For adults, one of the most important lessons to learn in life is the necessity of unlearning. We all think that we know certain things to be true beyond doubt, but these things often turn out to be false and, until we unlearn them, they get in the way of new understanding. Among the scientific certainties I have had to unlearn: that upbringing strongly shapes your personality; that nurture is the opposite of nature; that dietary fat causes obesity more than dietary carbohydrate; that carbon dioxide has been the main driver of climate change in the past.
MIND & MATTER WSJ
FEBRUARY 5, 2011
By MATT RIDLEY
For adults, one of the most important lessons to learn in life is the necessity of unlearning. We all think that we know certain things to be true beyond doubt, but these things often turn out to be false and, until we unlearn them, they get in the way of new understanding. Among the scientific certainties I have had to unlearn: that upbringing strongly shapes your personality; that nurture is the opposite of nature; that dietary fat causes obesity more than dietary carbohydrate; that carbon dioxide has been the main driver of climate change in the past.
Edge
"Deliciously creative...the variety astonishes...intellectual skyrockets of stunning brilliance. Nobody in the world is doing what Edge is doing. It's the greatest virtual research university in the world." —Denis Dutton, Arts & Letters Daily
THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER
James Flynn has defined "shorthand abstractions" (or "SHA's") as concepts drawn from science that have become part of the language and make people smarter by providing widely applicable templates ("market", "placebo", "random sample," "naturalistic fallacy," are a few of his examples). His idea is that the abstraction is available as a single cognitive chunk which can be used as an element in thinking and debate.
The Edge Question 2011
WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?
The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world.
01/01: Solitude and Leadership
This lecture is simply - very demanding but very important... (the credits are to David Brooks - Op Ed NYT for finding it and David Haarmeyer for pointing it out)
*****
If you want others to follow, learn to be alone with your thoughts
By William Deresiewicz
The lecture below was delivered to the plebe class at the United States Military Academy at West Point in October of last year.
My title must seem like a contradiction. What can solitude have to do with leadership? Solitude means being alone, and leadership necessitates the presence of others—the people you’re leading. When we think about leadership in American history we are likely to think of Washington, at the head of an army, or Lincoln, at the head of a nation, or King, at the head of a movement—people with multitudes behind them, looking to them for direction. And when we think of solitude, we are apt to think of Thoreau, a man alone in the woods, keeping a journal and communing with nature in silence.
Leadership is what you are here to learn—the qualities of character and mind that will make you fit to command a platoon, and beyond that, perhaps, a company, a battalion, or, if you leave the military, a corporation, a foundation, a department of government. Solitude is what you have the least of here, especially as plebes. You don’t even have privacy, the opportunity simply to be physically alone, never mind solitude, the ability to be alone with your thoughts. And yet I submit to you that solitude is one of the most important necessities of true leadership.
This lecture will be an attempt to explain why.
*****
If you want others to follow, learn to be alone with your thoughts
By William Deresiewicz
The lecture below was delivered to the plebe class at the United States Military Academy at West Point in October of last year.
My title must seem like a contradiction. What can solitude have to do with leadership? Solitude means being alone, and leadership necessitates the presence of others—the people you’re leading. When we think about leadership in American history we are likely to think of Washington, at the head of an army, or Lincoln, at the head of a nation, or King, at the head of a movement—people with multitudes behind them, looking to them for direction. And when we think of solitude, we are apt to think of Thoreau, a man alone in the woods, keeping a journal and communing with nature in silence.
Leadership is what you are here to learn—the qualities of character and mind that will make you fit to command a platoon, and beyond that, perhaps, a company, a battalion, or, if you leave the military, a corporation, a foundation, a department of government. Solitude is what you have the least of here, especially as plebes. You don’t even have privacy, the opportunity simply to be physically alone, never mind solitude, the ability to be alone with your thoughts. And yet I submit to you that solitude is one of the most important necessities of true leadership.
This lecture will be an attempt to explain why.
Communicating the nature and purpose of economics is a difficult task. This paper explains some of the whys and wherefores. Peter Boettke is more than insightful in this area - and usefully, he picks up where the late Paul Heyne left off.
Category: Problems in explanation
Posted by: Admin
One of the genuinely brilliant minds of the last century, Feynman contributed in numerous areas. Not the least of his contributions was to rigour in thinking. In this series of blog pieces I record some of his observations which I have found most insightful.
He noted that while in the physical sciences we have a number of confirmed theories which account for various phenomena, this is true only at certain levels or scales. Thus he cites the very well specified body of laws we have which describe and explain how and why water goes over a waterfall and descends to the pond or river below.
What we do not have he notes, is any body of law or theory which tells us how a specific body of water in a specific waterfall will unfold in the particular pattern it will while obeying the larger scale generic laws (gravity and so on). This strikes me as having important counterparts in economics.
We have a well elaborated law of demand for example. We do not have laws and theories which tell us in any meaningful fashion quite how a particular demand curve will unfold.
In this sense at least economics is no better but no worse than physics - a point often lost on journalists, politicians and the like.
He noted that while in the physical sciences we have a number of confirmed theories which account for various phenomena, this is true only at certain levels or scales. Thus he cites the very well specified body of laws we have which describe and explain how and why water goes over a waterfall and descends to the pond or river below.
What we do not have he notes, is any body of law or theory which tells us how a specific body of water in a specific waterfall will unfold in the particular pattern it will while obeying the larger scale generic laws (gravity and so on). This strikes me as having important counterparts in economics.
We have a well elaborated law of demand for example. We do not have laws and theories which tell us in any meaningful fashion quite how a particular demand curve will unfold.
In this sense at least economics is no better but no worse than physics - a point often lost on journalists, politicians and the like.
Interviewing one of the authors of recent book "The Spirit Level: Why Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better" (Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett) radio commentator and general life critic Chris Laidlaw pondered with one of the authors recently on how N.Z. is performing given its claim to egalitarianism.
The thesis of the book is - in tones and shroud waving familiar to the left - income disparities are getting ever wider, various capitalists and growth merchants especially bankers are to blame and the usual litany of accusations coupled with hand wringing, which ever flees from the fact that improvements across numerous indicators show that while gaps may widen all measures of central tendency show that the lift from previous levels of poverty for the vast majority of the world have been nothing short of phenomenal.
Interestingly the Guardian tells us the authors are epidemiologists - who swing (predictably if boringly) Krugman into action.... another who has left his field of excellence to fiddle and prognosticate in paddocks best left to others (politics) while he ignores what he is good, even great at (trade economics).
What struck me though was less this tale than the likely misconceptions we have in N.Z. about what sort of society an egalitarian one might be and whether or not it would be characterised by "equality" or even by smaller rather than larger disparities in income.
If a society became more egalitarian should we expect that income disparity would flatten or at least not increase. There is a good argument which suggests we might expect absolutely the opposite..... roughly as follows:
The drive for egalitarianism generally seeks to ensure that success, status (social and economic), positive progress for individuals and any privilege is based on relevant not irrelevant criteria. To the manor... not born, but by merit. Commissioned officers through competence not genealogy. Business success through merit and performance not inheritance. Riches through work not graft, gender, race, family background, school tie and so on.
The more successful a society is in ensuring that irrelevant factors remain just that - irrelevant - the more likely it is that success will arrive only via achievement. Thus just as one cannot "inherit" a place in the All Blacks - it has to be won, so too in a more as opposed to a less egalitarian society, places have to be won by dint of success in relevant skills, competencies and experience, and talents in relevant areas.
By definition, a society which has succeeded in suppressing the matching of status to relevant criteria and has instead allowed the irrelevancies of class, gender and the old school tie to dominate production and distribution will have artificially flattened incomes. Over any reasonable time, the phenomena of reversion to the mean will have ensured that success based on merit will have been leveled by the lacklustre efforts of the hereditary nincompoops.
Thus the average level of competence in the corps of British Officers of today could be expected to sharply exceed that of 200 years ago. In business the same pattern applies. Incomes and dividends are likely to reflect that. Even anecdotally that would appear to be the case.
Sweep away class systems and like non egalitarian criteria from the field and institutionalise entry to business, education, employment based on the more egalitarian factors of merit and demonstrated competence, and those who are excellent will rise and become visible. Lesser lights no longer protected will also be visible. On average the gap between top and bottom must widen. The result will surely be a necessary widening of income gaps (and other measures of improved welfare).
The logic is dreadfully simple. We might even speculate that a lack of income disparity means only one of two things:
1. Levels of poverty are so low that everyone is "equally poor". No doubt "fair" in the eyes of those whose envy exceeds their desire for the tide of growth to raise all boats, or,
2. A lack of the egalitarianism so keenly sought and praised by commentators, the media and politicians.
Either of these is a long way from cursing Thatcher or Reagan, monetarism and classic liberals as suggested by author Richard Wilkinson. More importantly it suggests that once the logic is considered egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity not artificially flattened outcomes.
The thesis of the book is - in tones and shroud waving familiar to the left - income disparities are getting ever wider, various capitalists and growth merchants especially bankers are to blame and the usual litany of accusations coupled with hand wringing, which ever flees from the fact that improvements across numerous indicators show that while gaps may widen all measures of central tendency show that the lift from previous levels of poverty for the vast majority of the world have been nothing short of phenomenal.
Interestingly the Guardian tells us the authors are epidemiologists - who swing (predictably if boringly) Krugman into action.... another who has left his field of excellence to fiddle and prognosticate in paddocks best left to others (politics) while he ignores what he is good, even great at (trade economics).
What struck me though was less this tale than the likely misconceptions we have in N.Z. about what sort of society an egalitarian one might be and whether or not it would be characterised by "equality" or even by smaller rather than larger disparities in income.
If a society became more egalitarian should we expect that income disparity would flatten or at least not increase. There is a good argument which suggests we might expect absolutely the opposite..... roughly as follows:
The drive for egalitarianism generally seeks to ensure that success, status (social and economic), positive progress for individuals and any privilege is based on relevant not irrelevant criteria. To the manor... not born, but by merit. Commissioned officers through competence not genealogy. Business success through merit and performance not inheritance. Riches through work not graft, gender, race, family background, school tie and so on.
The more successful a society is in ensuring that irrelevant factors remain just that - irrelevant - the more likely it is that success will arrive only via achievement. Thus just as one cannot "inherit" a place in the All Blacks - it has to be won, so too in a more as opposed to a less egalitarian society, places have to be won by dint of success in relevant skills, competencies and experience, and talents in relevant areas.
By definition, a society which has succeeded in suppressing the matching of status to relevant criteria and has instead allowed the irrelevancies of class, gender and the old school tie to dominate production and distribution will have artificially flattened incomes. Over any reasonable time, the phenomena of reversion to the mean will have ensured that success based on merit will have been leveled by the lacklustre efforts of the hereditary nincompoops.
Thus the average level of competence in the corps of British Officers of today could be expected to sharply exceed that of 200 years ago. In business the same pattern applies. Incomes and dividends are likely to reflect that. Even anecdotally that would appear to be the case.
Sweep away class systems and like non egalitarian criteria from the field and institutionalise entry to business, education, employment based on the more egalitarian factors of merit and demonstrated competence, and those who are excellent will rise and become visible. Lesser lights no longer protected will also be visible. On average the gap between top and bottom must widen. The result will surely be a necessary widening of income gaps (and other measures of improved welfare).
The logic is dreadfully simple. We might even speculate that a lack of income disparity means only one of two things:
1. Levels of poverty are so low that everyone is "equally poor". No doubt "fair" in the eyes of those whose envy exceeds their desire for the tide of growth to raise all boats, or,
2. A lack of the egalitarianism so keenly sought and praised by commentators, the media and politicians.
Either of these is a long way from cursing Thatcher or Reagan, monetarism and classic liberals as suggested by author Richard Wilkinson. More importantly it suggests that once the logic is considered egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity not artificially flattened outcomes.
31/05: Breaking the Cycle....
Category: Modes of Explanation
Posted by: Admin
Emmanuel Derman was one of the first of the physicists to go to Wall Street in the 1980s. This essay covers a variety of epistemological issues.... most notably the relationship between theories and models.
"One of the things I've been thinking about a lot, both in relation to the financial crisis and in relation to the way people understand the world in general, is the role of models in the world. There are a variety of different approaches to trying to understand the world, in all its facets, from the physical sciences to the social sciences and even one's personal life. I've categorized them in two ways: I like to distinguish what are called "theories" from "models". Theories, in my view, really try to capture the essence of the world, as in physics in one short equation, or in other fields, in one short schema.
It seems to me you can't really act in the world without having some kind of model or theory of how the world is going to behave in the future.
"One of the things I've been thinking about a lot, both in relation to the financial crisis and in relation to the way people understand the world in general, is the role of models in the world. There are a variety of different approaches to trying to understand the world, in all its facets, from the physical sciences to the social sciences and even one's personal life. I've categorized them in two ways: I like to distinguish what are called "theories" from "models". Theories, in my view, really try to capture the essence of the world, as in physics in one short equation, or in other fields, in one short schema.
It seems to me you can't really act in the world without having some kind of model or theory of how the world is going to behave in the future.
Here Robin Hanson raises some awkward but significant issues....
"A groundbreaking report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) last year recognized that much of forensic science is not rooted in solid science. Many forensic disciplines — such as hair microscopy, bite-mark comparisons, fingerprint analysis, firearm testing and tool-mark analysis — were developed solely to solve crimes. They evolved mainly in the context of individual cases, which often had significant variation in resources and expertise. They have not been subjected to rigorous experimental scrutiny, and there are no standards or oversight in the United States or elsewhere to ensure that validated, reliable forensic methods are used consistently. With the exception of DNA analysis, no forensic method has been proved to reliably and accurately demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific source. …"
We advocate the creation of an office of forensic science improvement and support (OFSIS) within the US Department of Commerce to spur independent research, develop standards and ensure compliance. … [Some] within the forensic-science and law-enforcement fields … argue that an OFSIS is not necessary and that laboratory accreditation is sufficient. … They argue that an OFSIS would cost too much … and that it could create chaos in the US justice system by reopening countless old cases. … Political and criminal-justice ends — rather than research imperatives — have taken forensic science off course. … See www.just-science.org.
The primary social pressure on law court practices is for courts to give the appearance of punishing guilty folks. Observers have much less info on who is actually guilty. So the main pressure on legal standards is that officially-accepted evidence seem to the public, juries, and judges to indicate guilt, not that it actually indicate guilt. We expect the law to be overconfident about its evidence.
Requiring that legal evidence standards stand up to independent experimental scrutiny would create a more accurate legal system, but at the expense of reducing the apparent rate at which the guilty are punished. So I expect, sadly, this proposal to be rejected.
"A groundbreaking report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) last year recognized that much of forensic science is not rooted in solid science. Many forensic disciplines — such as hair microscopy, bite-mark comparisons, fingerprint analysis, firearm testing and tool-mark analysis — were developed solely to solve crimes. They evolved mainly in the context of individual cases, which often had significant variation in resources and expertise. They have not been subjected to rigorous experimental scrutiny, and there are no standards or oversight in the United States or elsewhere to ensure that validated, reliable forensic methods are used consistently. With the exception of DNA analysis, no forensic method has been proved to reliably and accurately demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific source. …"
We advocate the creation of an office of forensic science improvement and support (OFSIS) within the US Department of Commerce to spur independent research, develop standards and ensure compliance. … [Some] within the forensic-science and law-enforcement fields … argue that an OFSIS is not necessary and that laboratory accreditation is sufficient. … They argue that an OFSIS would cost too much … and that it could create chaos in the US justice system by reopening countless old cases. … Political and criminal-justice ends — rather than research imperatives — have taken forensic science off course. … See www.just-science.org.
The primary social pressure on law court practices is for courts to give the appearance of punishing guilty folks. Observers have much less info on who is actually guilty. So the main pressure on legal standards is that officially-accepted evidence seem to the public, juries, and judges to indicate guilt, not that it actually indicate guilt. We expect the law to be overconfident about its evidence.
Requiring that legal evidence standards stand up to independent experimental scrutiny would create a more accurate legal system, but at the expense of reducing the apparent rate at which the guilty are punished. So I expect, sadly, this proposal to be rejected.
