Comments on: What Evidence in Silence or Confusion? http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:33:14 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Paul Crowley http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-442403 Paul Crowley Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:07:41 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-442403 Looking as if you might mean Cohen GD. <a href="http://journals.lww.com/ajgponline/Citation/1998/08000/The_Magic_Bullets_Are_Blanks__Purported_Shortcuts.1.aspx" rel="nofollow">The magic bullets are blanks. Purported shortcuts to improving the aging mind.</a> The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. 1998;6(3):185-95. Looking as if you might mean Cohen GD. The magic bullets are blanks. Purported shortcuts to improving the aging mind. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. 1998;6(3):185-95.

]]> By: Paul Crowley http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-442398 Paul Crowley Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:53:07 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-442398 <a href="http://ajgponline.org/cgi/content/citation/6/3/185" rel="nofollow">This link seems to be dead</a> - any help you can provide finding the relevant article would be gratefully received, thanks! This link seems to be dead – any help you can provide finding the relevant article would be gratefully received, thanks!

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422281 michael vassar Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:40:14 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422281 Lyle Burkhead is another famous critic of MNT, in fact, back in the late 90s he was the only critic on the web who showed a more than rudimentary familiarity with the subject. That he also denied the occurrence of the Holocaust was also somewhat noteworthy. Lyle Burkhead is another famous critic of MNT, in fact, back in the late 90s he was the only critic on the web who showed a more than rudimentary familiarity with the subject. That he also denied the occurrence of the Holocaust was also somewhat noteworthy.

]]> By: Nick Bostrom http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422280 Nick Bostrom Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:21:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422280 I agree that the bigger issue here is to explain the silence of the majority. Nevertheless, I have to admit I found it striking to learn that the most prominent and authoritative critic of MNT not only believes that MNT is impossible but also that "it is clear that" biological evolution is impossible. If I introspect on how I form my opinion on the feasibility and time scale of MNT, it seems that part is a direct assessment of how plausible it seems on technical grounds, part of it an assessement of how reliable the different parties to the dispute seem to be. The fact that I have read Drexler and talked with him, and found him very smart and insightful, helps boost my credence in MNT. I didn't meet Smalley, but this new revelation casts doubts on his reliability. I think that how one interprets the silence of the majority might depend on one's preliminary assessment of the plausibility of the claim at issue. If the claim seems absurd, then one might interpret the silence as confirmation of this impression - it's probably so absurd that it's not worth commenting on. If on the other hand the claim seems independently plausible and is supported by people one finds believable, and is opposed mainly or only by people one finds unbelievable, then one might begin to attach greater probability to alternative explanations for why the majority is silent. For example, maybe the majority does not have a strong view on the topic. Maybe they have a biased view and find themselves unable to articulate compelling arguments for their view, and therefore choose to remain silent. Maybe they face some kind of political/funding pressure to remain silent. I agree that the bigger issue here is to explain the silence of the majority. Nevertheless, I have to admit I found it striking to learn that the most prominent and authoritative critic of MNT not only believes that MNT is impossible but also that “it is clear that” biological evolution is impossible.

If I introspect on how I form my opinion on the feasibility and time scale of MNT, it seems that part is a direct assessment of how plausible it seems on technical grounds, part of it an assessement of how reliable the different parties to the dispute seem to be. The fact that I have read Drexler and talked with him, and found him very smart and insightful, helps boost my credence in MNT. I didn’t meet Smalley, but this new revelation casts doubts on his reliability. I think that how one interprets the silence of the majority might depend on one’s preliminary assessment of the plausibility of the claim at issue. If the claim seems absurd, then one might interpret the silence as confirmation of this impression – it’s probably so absurd that it’s not worth commenting on. If on the other hand the claim seems independently plausible and is supported by people one finds believable, and is opposed mainly or only by people one finds unbelievable, then one might begin to attach greater probability to alternative explanations for why the majority is silent. For example, maybe the majority does not have a strong view on the topic. Maybe they have a biased view and find themselves unable to articulate compelling arguments for their view, and therefore choose to remain silent. Maybe they face some kind of political/funding pressure to remain silent.

]]> By: zzz http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422279 zzz Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:31:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422279 Anders, there's no obvious connection between slow discounting and irrational persistence. Slow discounting is relevant when deciding whether to undertake a sunk investment (based on its ex-ante expected return), but once the investment has been incurred the sunk cost should be ignored as having no bearing on further decisions. Anders, there’s no obvious connection between slow discounting and irrational persistence. Slow discounting is relevant when deciding whether to undertake a sunk investment (based on its ex-ante expected return), but once the investment has been incurred the sunk cost should be ignored as having no bearing on further decisions.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422278 Robin Hanson Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:24:20 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422278 When most authorities are silent, the few who deviate to talk will likely be odd in some ways. So finding that a vocal critic is odd doesn't seem to offer much evidence one way or the other on the main dispute. The main issue is explaining the silence of the others. When most authorities are silent, the few who deviate to talk will likely be odd in some ways. So finding that a vocal critic is odd doesn’t seem to offer much evidence one way or the other on the main dispute. The main issue is explaining the silence of the others.

]]> By: Carl Shulman http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422277 Carl Shulman Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:17:27 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422277 When official criticism is scarce but not completely absent, it is worth determining whether those who do invest in criticism are representative. The views of elite scientists and Nobel laureates should generally be weighted quite heavily in our deliberations, but Smalley's belief in creationism is highly atypical among that class. We can then ask whether his unusual characteristics affected his engagement with the nanotechnology debate. If the answer is yes, then we can distinguish between effects on his belief formation (to the extent these exist his opinion should be discounted as a representative of elite or Nobel laureate thinking), and his motivation to enter debate (it would not be surprising that the few scientists who bother to engage in generally shunned debates have unusual motivation). When official criticism is scarce but not completely absent, it is worth determining whether those who do invest in criticism are representative. The views of elite scientists and Nobel laureates should generally be weighted quite heavily in our deliberations, but Smalley’s belief in creationism is highly atypical among that class. We can then ask whether his unusual characteristics affected his engagement with the nanotechnology debate.

If the answer is yes, then we can distinguish between effects on his belief formation (to the extent these exist his opinion should be discounted as a representative of elite or Nobel laureate thinking), and his motivation to enter debate (it would not be surprising that the few scientists who bother to engage in generally shunned debates have unusual motivation).

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422276 Robin Hanson Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:53:30 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422276 Carl, I don't understand the relevance of your comment to this post. Carl, I don’t understand the relevance of your comment to this post.

]]> By: Carl Shulman http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422275 Carl Shulman Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:50:30 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422275 These quotes lowered my confidence in Smalley's MNT critique: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1576833445/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/105-4819010-2978839?v=search-inside&keywords=smalley In an endorsement of this creationist book, Smalley wrote: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that biological evolution could not have occurred." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley [edit] Sourced [edit] On God Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it's true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done. May 2005, letter sent to the Hope College 2005 Alumni Banquet where he was awarded a distinguished alumni award; his illness prevented him from attending in person [edit] On evolution The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "Genesis" was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. October 2004 address at the Tuskegee University's 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation. These quotes lowered my confidence in Smalley’s MNT critique:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1576833445/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/105-4819010-2978839?v=search-inside&keywords=smalley
In an endorsement of this creationist book, Smalley wrote:

“Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley

[edit] Sourced

[edit] On God
Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.
May 2005, letter sent to the Hope College 2005 Alumni Banquet where he was awarded a distinguished alumni award; his illness prevented him from attending in person

[edit] On evolution
The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.
October 2004 address at the Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation.

]]> By: Rafe Furst http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/what_evidence_i.html#comment-422274 Rafe Furst Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:55:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/02/what-evidence-in-silence-or-confusion.html#comment-422274 That wasn't my point at all. Rather that the very nature of deciding which critics to give more or less time to necessarily introduces bias. That wasn’t my point at all. Rather that the very nature of deciding which critics to give more or less time to necessarily introduces bias.

]]>