5 ms·
I think it's generally not worth paying attention to renowned experts opining about stuff outside their field. If an epidemiologist and a biochemist had differe
by abeppu 6y ago
I think it's generally not worth paying attention to renowned experts opining about stuff outside their field.
If an epidemiologist and a biochemist had different views on this question, and posted their reasoning, that would be interesting. What does Jennifer Doudna think of the probability of catastrophic bioerror? (I hope that's in an interview somewhere.) Or perhaps there's a retired national security expert who could weigh in on which groups are most likely to attempt that sort of bioterrorism.
But these two are only in a position to make uninteresting and unconvincing arguments on behalf of their respective positions.
- UShouldBWorking 6y agoPinker is a jackass and a jerk. Why anyone listens to him is beyond me. Just another New York Times know-nothing shouting psudo-liberal.
- ggm 6y agoAre you in his field?
- DubiousPusher 6y agoPinker hasn't really had a field for some time now. IMO, this poster is basically correct though the mode of exposition is not very HN approved.
- ggm 6y agoI think he's a bit of a prick too.. but seriously, this isn't how HN works. If you're not a linguist or in stats then the critique is at best third hand, and basically common knowledge sour grapes. (All of the ego scientist stuff makes me mad, but I try to keep away from that)
- user-the-name 6y agoYou don't need to be in his field to notice he is an associate of Jeffrey Epstein.
- ggm 6y agoGuilt by association is really toxic. Please don't open this door. Epstein had a little black book with thousands of names and you're basically starting "the crucible" because you want to win an argument. I don't like Pinker as a public intellectual and not because of the company he kept, because of how sloppy he is with numbers, and an extremely argumentative egotistical posture. Some of his ideas are interesting. If you're going to start bone pointing to evil, do it somewhere else.
- mrslave 6y agoI agree with you sir, not because of what you say, but how you say it!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 6y ago>Pinker is a jackass and a jerk He might be, but this comment provides no argument as to whether he is, nor does it say anything about the subject matter. Not to mention that even a "jackass and a jerk" can be absolutely correct, since those accusations are mostly about behavioral and/or moral failings, not intellectual.
- user-the-name 6y agoHe provided defence for Jeffrey Epstein at his trial for being a pedophile rapist pimp, and then remained friends with him after he was convicted of that. There are many more points than that that could be made, but it does not seem necessary.
- coldtea 6y agoIf they are similar this point, yes, they're not necessary, as they are totally irrelevant to the longbet in discussion, or to Pinker's work in general. If Einstein was a serial killer on the side, relativity would still be a great theory...
- user-the-name 6y agoThere are millions of people who can provide at least as much insight as Pinker can ever manage. Let's listen to them instead of the creep who hangs out with rapist pimps.
- coldtea 6y ago>There are millions of people who can provide at least as much insight as Pinker can ever manage That takes for granted what it should instead prove. Pinker, regardless of who he fraternizes with or what moral causes he supports or not, is an acknowledged scientist. >Let's listen to them instead of the creep who hangs out with rapist pimps. Who people hang with is irrelevant. We don't and shouldn't change who we listen to on technical/scientific/etc matters based on their personal morality (even less so based on someone's idea about that). We change who we listen to on those matters based on the quality of their arguments and domain knowledge. In any case, we should not bring moralizing and posturing into discussions and into who we listen to, except if the morals in question are related to the subject matter. E.g. I would be suspect to economic arguments from an economist who has been found to take money from states to push some agenda. But I wouldn't be suspect to economic arguments from someones who enjoys killing kittens. I just wouldn't take environmental / pet advice from that person...
- chewz 6y ago> I think it's generally not worth paying attention to renowned experts opining about stuff outside their field. I disagree. It is actually sometimes quite illuminating listening to an expert using heuristics outside of his field of expertise. As a mental excercise.
- darawk 6y agoYa, and to add to that, it's often difficult to define what exactly the 'field' is. Is the field biology? Is it statistics? Risk? The anthropology of terrorism? Answering a complex question like "will there be a bioterror event that kills 1 million people" doesn't really fit neatly into any of these categories, because it combines information from a number of fields to synthesize the final answer.
- waihtis 6y agoThis is not a bet on biochemistry or epidemiology solely, but rather a bet on the likelihood of a tail event happening on a complex intertwined system of health, humans, society, mobility and many other issues.
- ImaCake 6y ago>What does Jennifer Doudna think of the probability of catastrophic bioerror? You can find hers (and co-author Sam Sternberg's) opinion on CRISPR as a method to do bioerror in her book "A Crack in Creation".
- omgJustTest 6y agoWow... then you haven't heard of Steven Pinker. He is seriously interesting to hear, and lays down very convincing, rigorous arguments. Out of his field? I don't know if it is such a thing. He is careful to not get into discussions he hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about.
- bsza 6y agoIf my understanding is correct, unless you are a journalist, you're basically saying "this comment is not worth paying attention to", which feels paradoxical to me.
- iamthepieman 6y agoI don't think this kind of bet/prediction really gives a big advantage to experts. And that includes any long prediction in any field, not just biochemistry or epidemiology. I would put more faith in the predictions of a statistician or actuary (possibly with a expert in consult).
- abeppu 6y agoI'm curious about that perspective. Isn't it really hard for statisticians to give probabilities to things that have never happened before? Especially in the presence of important non stationarity ("the technology is proliferating")? Like, one can construct a lot of models which give non-zero probability, but the available data gives you very little ability to distinguish between them.