5 ms·

Three paragraphs to demolish an acclaimed Nobel prize winner! Congratulations! You should be put forward for yours.

by rodgerd 11y ago

eklavya 11y ago
Proves his point beautifully :D
blfr 11y ago
He makes a good point. Overconfidence is more evolutionarily stable than objectivity. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/nature10384.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/nature1...
arpa 11y ago
Not to be that guy, but -- you are appealing to authority, which is not a valid argument... Personally, if I had a magic wand, would probably use it on myself to cure that damn impostor syndrome and the paralyzing fear of failure. But that's just me.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Well technically, while appeal to authority may not be valid for a perfectly informed rational agent, it is something that is valid for humans for the very same reasons 'torreens advocates overconfidence is useful - namely, we don't have neither enough time nor computing power to evaluate to evaluate all available data. Authority is a useful heuristic.
  - fao_ 11y ago
    The only problem is that it tends to backfire -- especially where nobel prize winners are concerned[1]. [1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Well of course; authority is just a heuristic, and heuristics can by definition lead you astray. But it doesn't mean they're not useful if you're careful about using them.
  - eivarv 11y ago
    An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid). Sure, authority can be a useful heuristic for non-authorities, but is useless in argumentative reasoning, e.g. "X, who is an authority says Y, and so [therefore] Y is true".
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Fortunately, real world does not run on boolean logic. "X, who is an authority on the topic says Y" does not prove Y is true, but provides evidence in favour of Y being true.
      - eivarv 11y ago
        Sure, I agree to some extent. In the hypothetical case it may be reasonable to assume that X knows what they are talking about; one can reasonably assume that they are better informed regarding the subject than a layperson. But the reason for it being a fallacy is that this sort of argument doesn't provide evidence of any kind. Rather, it makes the assumption that it must be true, because the authority says so.
        innguest 11y ago
        > it makes the assumption that it must be true, because the authority says so. You got it. You should not have been downvoted above.
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      > An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid). Jenny McCarthy and Dave Grohl's opinions on the effectiveness of vaccination are clearly as valid as my doctor's. Weighting my doctor's views above those is clearly a fallacy because debating rules.
      - eivarv 11y ago
        I appreciate your sarcastic attempt to make a point via reductio ad absurdum, but as you can see the only thing I'm saying is that arguments that makes the assumption that whatever an authority figure says regarding a matter must be true (argument from authority) are never valid. I'm not saying that expert opinions don't have merit, I'm saying that expert opinions aren't logically true because they are uttered by experts. I suggest you look a little more into these "debating rules" (logical fallacies), as they are basically old-timey resoning rules; i.e. popular and intuitive arguments that don't make sense. P.S. As I recall, the Foo Fighters were mixed up in HIV-denialism, not anti-vaccination.
- lordfoom 11y ago
  It may not be a logically valid argument - Kannehman could be wrong, despite being an authority - but it doesn't seem reasonable to dismiss the claims of a domain expert who has demonstrated a great depth of knowledge, including empirical studies to support his view points.
- petewailes 11y ago
  An appeal to authority is when you assert that because person X has significant knowledge on subject Y, that they're also therefore right about something in topic Z, where Y and Z are unrelated. For example, Steve is a researcher in bioengineering who's well regarded in his field. He says Stephen King is a poor writer. Stephen might be right or wrong, but we can't use his status as a scientist to back up his statements regarding literature. They're not related. However, it's not an appeal to authority when someone is actually an authority on an established subject where it's possible to be an authority on that thing. Which is the case here. Hope that helps!
  - eivarv 11y ago
    Actually, an appeal to authority [0,1] is fallacious because the entire argument (e.g. "authority figure says X") rests on the supposed infallibility of the authority, and says nothing about X in itself. An expert is, of course, more likely to be well informed within their field than a layperson, but they may nonetheless be incorrect. [0]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > you are appealing to authority, which is not a valid argument Outside of high school debate clubs, it's pretty reasonable to consider the demonstrated expertise of people making claims. I tend to take the opinion of medical researchers about the relationship of HIV and AIDS over the opinions of members of the Foo Fighters and Thabo Mbeki, for example. The opinion of an expert, in his area of expertise, backed by a career's worth of research, seems a little more likely to be correct than a random on the internet backed by nothing more that "nuh-uh!"
  - eivarv 11y ago
    Credentials can certainly be a good guideline, but as I'm sure you know HIV- and AIDS-researchers don't make the argument that their claims are true because of their authority status (which would be an appeal to authority), but because of the research their claims are based upon - as opposed to Jenny McCarthy et al.
atopal 11y ago
Pet peeve of mine: It's actually the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" or "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". From the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom... "It is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, but instead was established 73 years later by a donation to the foundation from Sweden's central bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, on the bank's 300th anniversary." From the criticism section: In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a Nobel Prize in economics, he would "have decidedly advised against it" primarily because, "The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally." Less important, but relevant note about the name: "Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandson of Ludvig Nobel.[28] Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics."

Three paragraphs to demolish an acclaimed Nobel prize winner! Congratulations! You should be put forward for yours.

by rodgerd 11y ago

Three paragraphs to demolish an acclaimed Nobel prize winner! Congratulations! You should be put forward for yours.

eklavya 11y ago

Proves his point beautifully :D

blfr 11y ago

He makes a good point. Overconfidence is more evolutionarily stable than objectivity. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/nature10384.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/nature1...

arpa 11y ago

Not to be that guy, but -- you are appealing to authority, which is not a valid argument... Personally, if I had a magic wand, would probably use it on myself to cure that damn impostor syndrome and the paralyzing fear of failure. But that's just me.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Well technically, while appeal to authority may not be valid for a perfectly informed rational agent, it is something that is valid for humans for the very same reasons 'torreens advocates overconfidence is useful - namely, we don't have neither enough time nor computing power to evaluate to evaluate all available data. Authority is a useful heuristic.
- fao_ 11y ago
  The only problem is that it tends to backfire -- especially where nobel prize winners are concerned[1]. [1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Well of course; authority is just a heuristic, and heuristics can by definition lead you astray. But it doesn't mean they're not useful if you're careful about using them.
- eivarv 11y ago
  An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid). Sure, authority can be a useful heuristic for non-authorities, but is useless in argumentative reasoning, e.g. "X, who is an authority says Y, and so [therefore] Y is true".
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Fortunately, real world does not run on boolean logic. "X, who is an authority on the topic says Y" does not prove Y is true, but provides evidence in favour of Y being true.
    - eivarv 11y ago
      Sure, I agree to some extent. In the hypothetical case it may be reasonable to assume that X knows what they are talking about; one can reasonably assume that they are better informed regarding the subject than a layperson. But the reason for it being a fallacy is that this sort of argument doesn't provide evidence of any kind. Rather, it makes the assumption that it must be true, because the authority says so.
      - innguest 11y ago
        > it makes the assumption that it must be true, because the authority says so. You got it. You should not have been downvoted above.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    > An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid). Jenny McCarthy and Dave Grohl's opinions on the effectiveness of vaccination are clearly as valid as my doctor's. Weighting my doctor's views above those is clearly a fallacy because debating rules.
    - eivarv 11y ago
      I appreciate your sarcastic attempt to make a point via reductio ad absurdum, but as you can see the only thing I'm saying is that arguments that makes the assumption that whatever an authority figure says regarding a matter must be true (argument from authority) are never valid. I'm not saying that expert opinions don't have merit, I'm saying that expert opinions aren't logically true because they are uttered by experts. I suggest you look a little more into these "debating rules" (logical fallacies), as they are basically old-timey resoning rules; i.e. popular and intuitive arguments that don't make sense. P.S. As I recall, the Foo Fighters were mixed up in HIV-denialism, not anti-vaccination.
lordfoom 11y ago
It may not be a logically valid argument - Kannehman could be wrong, despite being an authority - but it doesn't seem reasonable to dismiss the claims of a domain expert who has demonstrated a great depth of knowledge, including empirical studies to support his view points.
petewailes 11y ago
An appeal to authority is when you assert that because person X has significant knowledge on subject Y, that they're also therefore right about something in topic Z, where Y and Z are unrelated. For example, Steve is a researcher in bioengineering who's well regarded in his field. He says Stephen King is a poor writer. Stephen might be right or wrong, but we can't use his status as a scientist to back up his statements regarding literature. They're not related. However, it's not an appeal to authority when someone is actually an authority on an established subject where it's possible to be an authority on that thing. Which is the case here. Hope that helps!
- eivarv 11y ago
  Actually, an appeal to authority [0,1] is fallacious because the entire argument (e.g. "authority figure says X") rests on the supposed infallibility of the authority, and says nothing about X in itself. An expert is, of course, more likely to be well informed within their field than a layperson, but they may nonetheless be incorrect. [0]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
rodgerd 11y ago
> you are appealing to authority, which is not a valid argument Outside of high school debate clubs, it's pretty reasonable to consider the demonstrated expertise of people making claims. I tend to take the opinion of medical researchers about the relationship of HIV and AIDS over the opinions of members of the Foo Fighters and Thabo Mbeki, for example. The opinion of an expert, in his area of expertise, backed by a career's worth of research, seems a little more likely to be correct than a random on the internet backed by nothing more that "nuh-uh!"
- eivarv 11y ago
  Credentials can certainly be a good guideline, but as I'm sure you know HIV- and AIDS-researchers don't make the argument that their claims are true because of their authority status (which would be an appeal to authority), but because of the research their claims are based upon - as opposed to Jenny McCarthy et al.

atopal 11y ago

Pet peeve of mine: It's actually the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" or "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". From the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom... "It is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, but instead was established 73 years later by a donation to the foundation from Sweden's central bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, on the bank's 300th anniversary." From the criticism section: In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a Nobel Prize in economics, he would "have decidedly advised against it" primarily because, "The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally." Less important, but relevant note about the name: "Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandson of Ludvig Nobel.[28] Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics."