2 ms·

> ...make a tentative forecast based on the information available, and then systematically tear it apart, using the insights gained to guide my search for furth

> ...make a tentative forecast based on the information available, and then systematically tear it apart, using the insights gained to guide my search for further indicators and information... This is literally the scientific method. Come up with a falsifiable premise, then attempt to falsify it. Arguing that science is hard is pretty irrelevant. Most of the failings present in this article are really just evidence of not doing the second half. You should be looking for evidence that you're wrong, not evidence that you're right. This is later borne out by the proposal of adding confidence intervals and dates by which assumptions should be robust against being disproven. You'll find this type of language on experimental design in lots of scientific fields. This article is about someone's journey to rediscover the thing their source already knew (using scientific rigor can take a hypothesis into a theorem, and gradually bring you nearer an understanding of the underlying truth), and then call it something else because the original distillation of a theory into a soundbyte flew past them.

godelski 6y ago
The article was strange because the author said the method doesn't work because people don't hold opinions weakly, i.e. don't update them upon new evidence. And then dives into trying to question what new evidence even means. I've never heard the phrase "Strong Opinions, held weakly" but during my education and work I've always been told "stick to your guns and be confident. You came to conclusions for a reason. But keep your mind open because you can never have the full picture." As I see it, if the method is wrong because people don't use it correctly then don't throw out the method, update it to be more usable. Which is exactly the systematic tearing apart and rebuilding process that the author actually is engaging in himself. Adversaries to an idea is a good thing.

godelski 6y ago

The article was strange because the author said the method doesn't work because people don't hold opinions weakly, i.e. don't update them upon new evidence. And then dives into trying to question what new evidence even means. I've never heard the phrase "Strong Opinions, held weakly" but during my education and work I've always been told "stick to your guns and be confident. You came to conclusions for a reason. But keep your mind open because you can never have the full picture." As I see it, if the method is wrong because people don't use it correctly then don't throw out the method, update it to be more usable. Which is exactly the systematic tearing apart and rebuilding process that the author actually is engaging in himself. Adversaries to an idea is a good thing.