6 ms·

A theory is a machine for making testable predictions (i.e., positive claims that are a reason for rejecting the theory should they fail to be true). You go to

A theory is a machine for making testable predictions (i.e., positive claims that are a reason for rejecting the theory should they fail to be true). You go to great effort to NOT make any testable predictions. My point is that if your one testable prediction of slow change is true, then using the past to predict the future will be highly accurate. By "accurate", I mean that if the predictor says group X will have a 40% default rate, the empirical default rate of group X will be close to 40%. (I'm assuming a good model is built, etc.) Once in a blue moon (the rapid changes) this will fail, then everyone can re-adjust their models and go back to using the slow change assumption. This is strictly a positive (i.e., value-free) claim about the world. It's based on your positive belief. As for your dynamical systems verbiage, feel free to state a testable prediction.

pron 11y ago
> You go to great effort to NOT make any testable predictions. How do you figure? I don't make testable predictions when I don't have the tools to make them. I will just point out that 1. perfectly predictive models could be completely wrong in a dynamical system with feedback, and 2. that human society has been known to be such a system. > This is strictly a positive (i.e., value-free) claim about the world. It's based on your positive belief. You are absolutely right. Not only have I said the exact same thing, but I even went a step further and showed how making that prediction could be right even ad infinitum. That does not, however, mean that there isn't another correct prediction and that the choice between the two isn't ideological. Systems can (and do) have more than one stable state. I will say this again: your predictions both predict the outcome and determine it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10874683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10874683). I can give you an example that may make the point clearer: if society insisted that humans can't fly, it would have been correct for a very long time. If it had insisted that pursuing such goals is wasteful, it would have been correct to this day. This isn't mere speculation. In 1485, the sultan of the Ottoman empire forbade the printing of Arabic books (because the Arabic script is holy). That decision helped turn Arab society from the most advanced in the West in the middle ages, to a rather underdeveloped one. > As for your dynamical systems verbiage, feel free to state a testable prediction. That I've shown your math to be wrong does not mean that I have a better formula. I don't. I don't know how to predict society's behavior with any useful accuracy, but I do know to spot the errors in your predictions. This is made easy by two facts: 1/ that identical predictions could have been made in various periods throughout history and they would have been wrong then, and 2/ that your biases are so strong and that you so insist in remaining blind to their existence and keep making the same wrong assumptions over and over. I am truly sorry: we don't yet know how to mathematically model society well. That, however, does not mean that we can't study it and make some useful qualitative observations. When I studied non-linear differential equations (only ODEs, though), I was dismayed that the same could be said on much simpler models than human society, but there you have it. But if you insist on something, here you go: if society decides to continue to bet 1, the result will be 1 until unforeseen forces change it; if, however, society decides to bet -1, the result will rather quickly converge to -1.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I don't make testable predictions when I don't have the tools to make them. You just admitted you don't have a theory (aka, the tool to make testable predictions). Also, you haven't shown the math to be wrong. All you've done is speculated that if we start making bad loans to groups that are disproportionately likely to be deadbeats, they'll suddenly start paying back their loans. If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions.
  - pron 11y ago
    > You just admitted you don't have a theory (aka, the tool to make testable predictions). No, I have stated it long ago. We have a rough idea of a rough model, basically based on lots of qualitative observations. > Also, you haven't shown the math to be wrong. Yes, I did. First I've shown how you confused social bias with observation bias, and second I've shown you neglected to take into account that in a feedback system correct predictions don't mean a correct model. > All you've done is speculated that if we start making bad loans to groups that are disproportionately likely to be deadbeats, they'll suddenly start paying back their loans. If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions. Why just deadbeats? VCs have been throwing a lot of money at rich, hard working white kids in Silicon Valley, yet they've made a mess of it once, and it seems like they may be in the process of doing it again. Why single out the poor? But I was wondering when we'll see you again. I didn't say that, and I certainly didn't mean that. That's what you wanted me to have said because that is stupid. I told it to you before: the reason you make such silly arguments is because you keep thinking the other side is an idiot. Seriously, pretend I'm Bertrand Russel, and that while I could make a mistake, I am unlikely to think something really stupid. That would save us a lot of time, and make you sound smarter, too. And read this: https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm... It really evoked the conversations I have with you on this site. I particularly liked this opening quote of Steven Pinker: A classic writer... counts on the common sense and ordinary charity of his readers, just as in everyday conversation we know when a speaker means in general or all else being equal. If someone tells you that Liz wants to move out of Seattle because it’s a rainy city, you don’t interpret him as claiming that it rains there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just because he didn’t qualify his statement with relatively rainy or somewhat rainy. Any adversary who is intellectually unscrupulous enough to give the least charitable reading to an unhedged statement will find an opening to attack the writer in a thicket of hedged ones anyway. So there you have it: Intellectually unscrupulous. > If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions. If you think -- as you yourself say -- that I couldn't possibly believe what I've written, that's a sure way of knowing that I must have meant something else. Either read my comments more carefully and charitably, or ask. Now you have two choices: Try to understand what I really meant and maybe learn something new, or keep building an imaginary world around you where everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who believes stupid stuff, and the purpose of that world is to ensure that you never challenge your own beliefs. Ask yourself this: do you really want to challenge your beliefs or not? I really, really do. One of the reasons I keep arguing with you here is that I see some potential in you. Maybe one day you'll be confident enough to charitably read my comments and then maybe you'll make a truly challenging argument. I sincerely hope that you do.

pron 11y ago

> You go to great effort to NOT make any testable predictions. How do you figure? I don't make testable predictions when I don't have the tools to make them. I will just point out that 1. perfectly predictive models could be completely wrong in a dynamical system with feedback, and 2. that human society has been known to be such a system. > This is strictly a positive (i.e., value-free) claim about the world. It's based on your positive belief. You are absolutely right. Not only have I said the exact same thing, but I even went a step further and showed how making that prediction could be right even ad infinitum. That does not, however, mean that there isn't another correct prediction and that the choice between the two isn't ideological. Systems can (and do) have more than one stable state. I will say this again: your predictions both predict the outcome and determine it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10874683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10874683). I can give you an example that may make the point clearer: if society insisted that humans can't fly, it would have been correct for a very long time. If it had insisted that pursuing such goals is wasteful, it would have been correct to this day. This isn't mere speculation. In 1485, the sultan of the Ottoman empire forbade the printing of Arabic books (because the Arabic script is holy). That decision helped turn Arab society from the most advanced in the West in the middle ages, to a rather underdeveloped one. > As for your dynamical systems verbiage, feel free to state a testable prediction. That I've shown your math to be wrong does not mean that I have a better formula. I don't. I don't know how to predict society's behavior with any useful accuracy, but I do know to spot the errors in your predictions. This is made easy by two facts: 1/ that identical predictions could have been made in various periods throughout history and they would have been wrong then, and 2/ that your biases are so strong and that you so insist in remaining blind to their existence and keep making the same wrong assumptions over and over. I am truly sorry: we don't yet know how to mathematically model society well. That, however, does not mean that we can't study it and make some useful qualitative observations. When I studied non-linear differential equations (only ODEs, though), I was dismayed that the same could be said on much simpler models than human society, but there you have it. But if you insist on something, here you go: if society decides to continue to bet 1, the result will be 1 until unforeseen forces change it; if, however, society decides to bet -1, the result will rather quickly converge to -1.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I don't make testable predictions when I don't have the tools to make them. You just admitted you don't have a theory (aka, the tool to make testable predictions). Also, you haven't shown the math to be wrong. All you've done is speculated that if we start making bad loans to groups that are disproportionately likely to be deadbeats, they'll suddenly start paying back their loans. If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions.
- pron 11y ago
  > You just admitted you don't have a theory (aka, the tool to make testable predictions). No, I have stated it long ago. We have a rough idea of a rough model, basically based on lots of qualitative observations. > Also, you haven't shown the math to be wrong. Yes, I did. First I've shown how you confused social bias with observation bias, and second I've shown you neglected to take into account that in a feedback system correct predictions don't mean a correct model. > All you've done is speculated that if we start making bad loans to groups that are disproportionately likely to be deadbeats, they'll suddenly start paying back their loans. If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions. Why just deadbeats? VCs have been throwing a lot of money at rich, hard working white kids in Silicon Valley, yet they've made a mess of it once, and it seems like they may be in the process of doing it again. Why single out the poor? But I was wondering when we'll see you again. I didn't say that, and I certainly didn't mean that. That's what you wanted me to have said because that is stupid. I told it to you before: the reason you make such silly arguments is because you keep thinking the other side is an idiot. Seriously, pretend I'm Bertrand Russel, and that while I could make a mistake, I am unlikely to think something really stupid. That would save us a lot of time, and make you sound smarter, too. And read this: https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm... It really evoked the conversations I have with you on this site. I particularly liked this opening quote of Steven Pinker: A classic writer... counts on the common sense and ordinary charity of his readers, just as in everyday conversation we know when a speaker means in general or all else being equal. If someone tells you that Liz wants to move out of Seattle because it’s a rainy city, you don’t interpret him as claiming that it rains there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just because he didn’t qualify his statement with relatively rainy or somewhat rainy. Any adversary who is intellectually unscrupulous enough to give the least charitable reading to an unhedged statement will find an opening to attack the writer in a thicket of hedged ones anyway. So there you have it: Intellectually unscrupulous. > If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions. If you think -- as you yourself say -- that I couldn't possibly believe what I've written, that's a sure way of knowing that I must have meant something else. Either read my comments more carefully and charitably, or ask. Now you have two choices: Try to understand what I really meant and maybe learn something new, or keep building an imaginary world around you where everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who believes stupid stuff, and the purpose of that world is to ensure that you never challenge your own beliefs. Ask yourself this: do you really want to challenge your beliefs or not? I really, really do. One of the reasons I keep arguing with you here is that I see some potential in you. Maybe one day you'll be confident enough to charitably read my comments and then maybe you'll make a truly challenging argument. I sincerely hope that you do.