Glen,

 

Well, I think that all thinking is metaphorical (as does Dave), but let that 
go.  I agree that statements of the form "everything is X" really aren't 
awfully useful. 

 

I think an obsessively metaphorical thinker is one who has the arrogance to 
suppose that s/he has some familiar experience by which s/he can model any 
experience of another person.  I actually don't believe that that is true, but 
I think it is true enough that I feel it is my obligation to try.   

 

I am deeply suspicious of modal talk of any form because it is so often used in 
human interactions to manipulate other people.  "I probably will return your 
tools tomorrow".   My colleagues used to say, "I think the Department should 
improve its teaching."  So often in human affairs, modal language has no 
practicial consequences whatsoever except to confuse and lull the audience.  

 

Now, what most people wanted to know from Nate Silver is whether Clinton was 
going to win the election.  Nate constantly says that making such predictions 
is, strictly speaking, not his job.  As long as what happens falls within the 
error of his prediction, he feels justified in having made it.   He will say 
things like, "actually we were right."  I would prefer him to say, "Actually we 
were wrong, but I would make the same prediction under the same circumstances 
the next time.”  In other words, the right procedure produced, on this 
occasion, a wrong result.  

 

That’s all, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[email protected]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 4:45 PM
To: FriAM <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations

 

Again, though, you seem to be allowing your metaphor to run away with you. When 
someone who does quantitative modeling says "expected value", they do NOT mean 
what the layperson means when they say "I expect X". We can pick apart your 
statement and accuse you of an ambiguity fallacy if we want.

 

Your first use of "expected value" relies on the jargonal definition. Then you 
switcheroo on us and your 2nd use of "I expect that" relies on the vernacular 
concept. Up to this point, we can give you the benefit of the doubt. We all 
munge things a bit when talking/thinking. But *then*, on your 3rd use of "what 
he expected", you explicitly switched the meaning from jargon to vernacular.

 

I don't think you do this on purpose. (If you do, I laud you as a fellow troll! 
>8^) I think it's  an artifact of your being a "metaphorical thinker", whatever 
that means.

 

FWIW, I only had to pull a little on the Sabine Hossenfelder thread to find 
that she tweeted this, as well:

 

Embracing the Uncertainties

While the unknowns about coronavirus abound, a new study finds we ‘can handle 
the truth.’

 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/coronavirus-uncertainty-scientific-trust.html?smid=tw-share>
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/coronavirus-uncertainty-scientific-trust.html?smid=tw-share

 

The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers  
<https://www.pnas.org/content/117/14/7672.abstract> 
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/14/7672.abstract

 

If they're right, then the right-leaning local media might band together with 
the clickbaity national media and give it to us straight ... or they might 
simply skew their "expected value" reporting to continue serving their 
politics. Pfft.

 

 

On 4/17/20 2:58 PM,  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 
wrote:

> If expert X tells me that the expected value of variable A is K, then, 

> when it's all over and the data are in, and A did not equal K, I expect that 
> expert to admit that /what he expected did not happen./  Only after that 
> confession has been made, should a conversation begin about whether the 
> expert’s prediction process was faulted or not.  It seems to me that the 
> shaded area is part of that second conversation.

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... 
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... 
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Reply via email to