Let's be clear about which problem we're addressing. I have a two-pronged critique of the Nate Silver doctrine:
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev @slatestarcodex
1) As framed, it fails bc you should have very low confidence in your beliefs about global welfare *if a vote is 50-50*.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @St_Rev
~50% of US is creationist. I think it's possible for 50% to believe something, still feel strongly that it's trivially wrong.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex
The theory of evolution is relatively simple to understand. Most people who believe it nevertheless don't understand it.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @slatestarcodex
But importantly, belief in it is irrelevant to almost every practical question unless you're a working biologist.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @slatestarcodex
Why would belief in it be exceptionally relevant to working biologists?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kaleidic @slatestarcodex
As an organizing principle it makes sense of masses of data that are otherwise incompressible.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @St_Rev @slatestarcodex
I'm not challenging its explanatory power. I am unsure belief in it is important, and still less inclined …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
… to think if belief *is* important that's so much more for working biologists than others.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kaleidic @slatestarcodex
It's kinda like being an auto mechanic and believing in gasoline. It's central.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I mean, it depends what you mean by "believe". I don't "believe" in the first isomorphism theorem.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.