Comments | talk_politics: The Blind Spot

jerseycajun in talk_politics

The Blind Spot

Dec 12, 2011 01:32

"We create models of reality and then insist that the models are reality. It is not that science, mathematics, and statistics do not provide useful information about the real world. The problem lies in making excessive claims for the validity of these methods and models and believing them to be absolutely certain." - William Byers, PhD ( Read more... )

stats, economics, occupy wall street, tea party

Comments 41

(The comment has been removed)

jerseycajun December 12 2011, 08:35:34 UTC

Whenever someone starts with "I usually like your posts..." I feel the sphincter tighten, waiting for the "but...".

In any case, happy the 'but' never followed. :) Thanks for the bon mots.

htpcl December 12 2011, 17:46:24 UTC

DQ ;-)

jerseycajun December 12 2011, 18:43:13 UTC

This?!? This is the one picked? *headdesk*

;)

Thread 7

eracerhead December 12 2011, 13:05:03 UTC

He appears to be restating the problem of induction. We produce models and hold them to be true, but as everything scientific they are provisional, because it does not follow that what happened in the past is certain to happen in the future. How science gets around this is that theories must be both testable and falsifiable, and this is what is missing in general discourse involving politics and its cousin economics ( ... )

jerseycajun December 12 2011, 18:31:18 UTC

1.) The goals of religion and science are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of what it is they're pursuing. One is after the physical explanation, the other pursues meaning and neither pursuit is outmoded. The problem isn't that religion exists, it's that people often cross those purposes, or believe falsely that one exists to replace the other.

2.) Even the 'other fields' thought to be more certain, are bumping into the problem above.

And it's not even the magnitude of change that matters, as stated in the OP. Small changes can have as drastic an effect as big ones.

pastorlenny December 12 2011, 14:56:54 UTC

I defend free markets, I do so not on the basis that it will always produce fantastic results

What would "fantastic results" be?

We take in what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell, and try to make the best sense we can of it, but we never get to look at the world beyond sensation and into objective reality. We're not built for that.

So what we see doesn't exist? Are you saying that my thought is not a genuine phenomenon in the cosmos? How bizarre!

johnny9fingers December 12 2011, 15:14:55 UTC

I sense the genesis of an epistemological debate on T_P….

pastorlenny December 12 2011, 15:19:57 UTC

Why are you responding to a comment from someone who may not exist?

johnny9fingers December 12 2011, 15:27:03 UTC

Within the realm of chance not only are all things possible: all things possible must be.

:)

Thread 21

the_rukh December 12 2011, 15:34:06 UTC

It makes sense for a statistician to say that, they are much more up on the funky mechanics of modeling and,how it does and,does not relate to the world.

The problem he, and you, describe is a constant problem people in a lot of other fields seem to miss though. You see it ALL THE TIME in physics, especially with quantum physics. People constantly mistake what makes the math work with what is actually happening.

It unfortunately happens a lot with conservation too. I get no end of it from my dad who is employed in fishing. The fishing stock assessment methods are fairly ludicrous and entirely based on baseless assumptions stuck in to a model. Hey, if the model says it, it must be true rig ht?

devil_ad_vocate December 12 2011, 15:48:53 UTC

While looking through Christmas catalogs, I saw a T-shirt that said, "Statistics means never having to say you're certain". Gotta have it!