[FRIAM] Collective sensemaking

[Pieter Steenekamp]

To somewhat reflect on an exercise like this; it obviously depends on your
understanding of what is "false". A postmodern point of view emphasizes the
importance of perspective, there is no absolute ground truth. If you view
the world from this perspective, then obviously an exercise like this is
meaningless. On the other hand, modernists argue there is a ground truth
and an exercise like this can help to get to the ground truth. (I admit I
don't really know what is postmodernism and modernism, that's my
understanding and I'm open to learn if someone more knowledgeable corrects
me)

Personally, I don't really know where to draw the line. There are obviously
issues where the truth is subjective, but I do think there's enough
validity in an objective ground truth to experiment with an exercise like
this. Take the example from the very first "valid" falsification - Malone
claimed a treatment cost for Remdsivir is approximately $6-$8k and the
submission was made that this is false, it is only about $3k. Malone was
wrong, there's no subjectivity involved, he made an objectively
measurable false claim.

Again, I like to withold my final verdict on the process till it's
completed and we can study the results, but the openness and transparency
of the process enthuses me. Of course, there could be practical reasons why
it does not deliver what's expected?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 19:41, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> But, for what it's worth, reading the current state of the spreadsheet,
> Jocelynn clearly thinks more like I do. Paul, in my opinion, doesn't
> understand how to evaluate the claims. Max is in the middle, perhaps taking
> too much of a myopic, literalist perspective on falsification.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nEsf6l_dEv_NQqLvoHYP-eRZ0UmZGqo16uSHub53h9Q/edit#gid=31863150
>
> As expected, this Ground Truth Challenge is mostly a waste of time. And
> I'm sure Bret *loves* the attention. But to the extent it gets people
> talking at least somewhat dispassionately about composition and narrative,
> maybe it'll be slightly helpful.
>
> So far, 5 of the counterclaims are scored as "valid". I.e. One of
> Weinstein, Kory, or Malone made a blatantly false statement. But the devil
> is always in the details.
>
>
> On 7/20/21 8:16 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> > No. Trust is a bug, not a feature in this context. Now, *if* the
> referees come back with a nuanced evaluation of any of the objections, then
> I would be impressed. One of the reasons most philosophers and scientists
> don't respond well to falsificationism is because it can be myopically
> taken out of context (which I think this Ground Truth effort does as well).
> Theories are never actually falsified, per se. It's a mix of testing and
> iteration, mixing and matching from old theories and tiny incremental
> progress.
> >
> > The same would be true of the evaluations from the referees. It's not a
> matter of trust, argument from authority. It's a matter of good faith
> mechanistic explanation ... something Weinstein fails at continually. Irony
> is broken, here. Weinstein wants us to see him as democratizing,
> anti-censorship, blahblah. But he never seems to deliver the contextual
> nuance required for it. His appeals to emotion, anecdote, special pleading,
> and a variety of other fallacies obstruct democracy.
> >
> > This is where, despite my misgivings, someone like Joe Rogan is WAY more
> informative and defensible. Another fundamental pillar of Popperianism is
> *openness*, that untested hypotheses can enter the testing pipeline from
> anywhere. Rogan is open minded to a fault. (If your mind is too open, your
> brains will fall out.) Weinstein is *motivated* and pre-filters hypotheses,
> especially anything appearing "woke" or "mainstream". And that's just
> stupid.
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/21 8:58 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> >> Am I correct in asserting that the gist of what you guys say about this
> ground truth exercise is that if you don't trust the referees you can't
> trust the result? If yes, I'll agree with you on that point.
> >
>
> --
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210720/b4e42693/attachment.html>