
The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb - chewxy
http://www.inexactchange.org/blog/2015/07/24/the-mathiness-of-nassim-nicholas-taleb/
======
evanpw
I like the term "mathiness" for this, because it seems like exactly the same
kind of thing that's complained about in economics under that name.

Namely, you claim (necessarily without proof) that a real-world phenomenon is
analogous to a certain mathematical model. Then you prove some things about
the model. Finally, you claim that the things you've proved about the model
are also true about the real world. It doesn't matter how rigorous the
mathematical steps in the middle are, the strength of this kind of argument is
determined by the first step: how strong is the analogy between the
mathematical system and real life?

In physics, we can build models where the analogy is very strong: when we try
out new situations in both the model and in real life, we get the same answer
in both. In (macro-)economics, we typically do something weaker, where we
start with a set of models determined by intuition, and then choose the one
that gives results most similar to real life in the situations we've already
seen. Prediction of future events is really difficult.

It seems like the approach in Taleb's paper is even weaker. We choose a model
based on pure analogy, explicitly disclaim the usefulness of evidence ("While
evidentiary approaches are often considered to reflect adherence to the
scientific method in its purest form, it is apparent that these approaches do
not apply to ruin problems"), and then attack anyone who says that we've done
something other than prove a mathematical theorem about the real world.

It's too bad, because underneath all of the "mathiness" is one of the
strongest arguments against GMOs that I've heard (and I say that as a GMO-
eater). It just should have been an opinion piece in the NYT rather than a
research article on the arxiv.

~~~
pcrh
From the point pf view of a biologist, his argument against GMO is pretty
weak. He is essentially saying that we _don 't know_, therefore there _could_
be a large negative consequence.

However, he has failed to grasp, or educate himself sufficiently, that gene
transfer between organisms is in fact a common occurrence in natural
ecosystems [0].

Further, at this moment at least, the genes that are being transferred
artificially are in general not genes that would cause havoc if they somehow
became mobilized from the species into which they were introduced. By way of
example, the protein Bt confers resistance to insect predation,it is
originally derived from a bacterium that killed insects in a parasitic cycle
[1]. Plants, generally, have hundreds or thousands of ways of resisting insect
predation, and adding one more to the mix is not going to devastate any
ecosystem, at least not in the long term.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis)

~~~
evanpw
I am not a biologist, but I think of the ecological risk of GMO as something
akin to AI risk: Not a serious risk at the current level of technology or in
the near future, not sufficiently dangerous to stop research or forego the
benefits of today's versions, but serious enough that it would be good for a
few people to be thinking about it right now.

~~~
a_bonobo
> but serious enough that it would be good for a few people to be thinking
> about it right now.

Of course, GM-technology is a huge area of tools, tools which are being used
in all kinds of situations and outcomes: modifying bacteria to create insulin
or washing powder ingredients (both of these have been done on an industrial
scale for decades now); modifying plants to have a better defense against
various pests (being done with Bt cotton and soy IIRC), or just to glow in the
dark (there's a kickstarter), etc.

These are all more or less "good" outcomes of GM, but you could also use GM
for "bad" \- you could make maize express a human neurotoxin and spread that
plant in order to attack a country (a not very directed attack). The only
thing that's stopping you is that it's still very hard, expensive and time-
consuming to do so.

------
nkurz
I'm not sure if Taleb's precautionary principle should be applied to GMO's or
not, but I found this critique to be somewhere between uncharitable and
misguided.

For example, Taleb is already measuring earthquakes by the energy released.
This is how "magnitude" is defined for earthquakes. Thus statements like "For
instance, in the coffee cup example, Taleb measures the intensity of an
earthquake by its magnitude. What happens if we measure an earthquake instead
by the amount of energy it releases?" make me conclude that the author of the
critique understands neither earthquakes nor Taleb.

As for the overall claim of fuzziness, it's probably best to let readers make
their own judgement. Appendix C here is Taleb's "Mathematical Derivations of
Fragility". While one can dispute where it should be applied, it's far from
devoid of detail:
[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf)

~~~
dragonwriter
> For example, Taleb is already measuring earthquakes by the energy released.
> This is how "magnitude" is defined for earthquakes.

No, as the article notes, the measurement of magnitude (in the Richter scale)
is proportional to the base-32 logarithm of energy released (its defined as
proportional the base-10 logarithm of seismic wave amplitude.)

Taleb's use of the coffee cup example to suggest a disproportionate impact of
large events vs. small events -- suggesting that the real relative impact of a
magnitude 6 quake compared to a magnitude 1 quake is disproportionately
greater than their size because one magnitude six quake does more damage than
six magnitude one quakes -- is vacuous from its structure because you can
arbitrarily choose scales of measurement to make the impact proportional or
disproportional in either direction, and ludicrous in its particular choice of
measurement scales since, well, I mean, who would expect an earthquake
releasing 1 billion times as much energy to do only 6 times the damage?

Taleb makes a comparison that sounds significant because most people don't
know what the numbers involved mean.

~~~
darawk
While you are right, this completely misses the point Taleb is making. The
earthquake thing is just an analogy to explain the principle of non-linearity.
Yes, the analogy is bad because the richter scale is logarithmic, but the
principle it illustrates is still perfectly valid and applicable to the
discussion at hand.

------
wiwiw
The GMO argument like so many things now seems to be divided into "Best thing
since sliced bread" or "Bringer of the end of the world" camps. Not
understanding the deep details I would like to see more nuanced debate. What
are the actual and potential risk, and what are the actual and potential
benefits.

On the risk side, GMO proponents like to argue that the technology is safe
because we haven't found any ill effects. But what they are really saying is
that we haven't found any so far. I remember studying genetics and being told
about junk DNA, even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helical
structure, suspected it was “little better than junk.” Since then this opinion
has changed. We find out new things about DNA all the time, it is now thought
that previous generations experiences can change decedents. Reading the recent
articles about Chinese scientists using CRISPR to modifying embryos they
started with 86, 71 survived, and 28 were successfully spliced, not really a
precise operation. With this in mind I find anyone who says there is no risk
is not being intellectually honest. The question that comes up is what are the
chances that we are Marie Curie working with something that ultimately harms
us?

In terms of assessing benefits I like to take the example of X-ray technology.
From the 1920s to the 1970s a machine known as a shoe-fitting fluoroscope was
used to see if shoes fit feet (especially children's feet). With the growing
understanding of the harmful effects of radiation these machines were phased
out, although never banned. That doesn't mean we don't x-ray people, we do, if
you break a bone or go to the dentist the benefit of diagnosing the injury or
cavity is considered to outweigh the damage from the radiation. For people in
Western nations with plentiful food supplies the macro scale benefits of GMO
seem limited, we weren't starving to death or going blind before GMOs. However
if my family and friends were going blind due to Vitamin A deficiency the
benefits would weigh more heavily on my opinion.

I don't claim to be an expert in this area but am interested in being provided
with a more neutral analysis to help me form an opinion.

~~~
x5n1
There is also the whole regulatory capture side of GMO. The ownership of all
plants on Earth by a few corporations. That part is also worrying because it
brings all food under the control of a few corporations under the patents
regime.

~~~
vixen99
How is it that this isn't THE major issue?

~~~
Tycho
Because patents are just legal constructs which can be repealed or ignored,
unlike catastrophic damage to the ecosphere...

------
newtrader
The "mathematician" who call Taleb mathiness has made a critical mistake.
[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/624767423049269249](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/624767423049269249)
reply

------
newtrader
Has been debunked
[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/624767423049269249](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/624767423049269249)

~~~
JackFr
That's hardly debunking. I would call it further obfuscation and and an appeal
to motive. Taleb is a noble truth seeker and the GMO proponents are out to
silence him.

Hardly.

Having read his books, he's a bright guy often with compelling ideas. If he
would leave them as thought experiments and appeals to common sense honestly I
think his arguments would be more effective. His need to formalize everything
mathematically, for a reader with a moderately sophisticated mathematical
background, ends up undermining his argument.

~~~
bluecalm
That's most of his writing though: throw a lot of complicated words at the
reader and hope some naive ones start seeing mystique depth in his thought.
His writing is incoherent though. Even reading abstract of his paper [1]:

>>We present a non-naive version of the Precautionary (PP) that allows us to
avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and
problems. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the
absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries
profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans",
unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence. We formalize PP,
placing it within the statistical and probabilistic structure of ruin
problems, in which a system is at risk of total failure, and in place of risk
we use a formal fragility based approach. We make a central distinction
between 1) thin and fat tails, 2) Local and systemic risks and place PP in the
joint Fat Tails and systemic cases. We discuss the implications for GMOs
(compared to Nuclear energy) and show that GMOs represent a public risk of
global harm (while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and
better characterized). PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.

Leaves little doubt. You can't call him a truth seeker - he is a quack with
some talent for wooing people.

[1] [http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787](http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787)

~~~
Tycho
Seemed coherent to me. Which part didn't you understand?

