A Consortium of Scientists
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:52:08 -0400 (EDT)
Some otherwise brilliant people can grab hold
of a single analogy which applies to a single
point and become blinded to the fact that OTHER
analogies may apply.
Often I perceive that not only is this true for some
of the individuals who write letter to editors of
newspapers but, also, even some prominent
intellectual thinkers fall headlong into this logical
trap.
Random chance can apply to some aspects of a
given real life scenario and not others. Let me give
an example that applies to stock market dynamics
and then demonstrate how the same principle applies
to the dynamic of evolutionary biology.
The truism that "Prior performance of a stock does
not predict future performance" is one that every
investor (risk taker) should understand... repeat...
understand. To memorize it and focus on it OUT OF
THE ENTIRE CONTEXT of market dynamics,
however is grossly misleading.
It was cited to me recently by an individual who is a
tyro at stock investing OUT OF the context of the
entire dynamic, and I encouraged that individual to
"... keep reading, and not be blinded by simplistic, and
narrow-reaching aphorisms in lieu of grasping the big
picture."
"Stock prices," I explained, "are impacted by numerous
variables -- one of the (if not THE) foremost being
influenced to a large extent by some of the mechanics of
mass psychology. But ANY metaphor, no matter how
apropos to one situation, or class of situations, does
not necessarily apply to each and every parallel or
variable or extension of a given scenario or the entire
class of scenarios in which it may be classified. It would
NOT be accurate to say that, since prior "price" performance
of a given stock is not indicative of future performance of
"price" of that stock that -- for example -- any corporation
is equally in danger of going belly up next year."
My investing novice friend responded, "Yes, but I read this
"rule" in several different books written by several of the
most successful investors in the world."
I replied, "Yes, but none of those successful authors would
want you to believe that because the price of a stock might
do what ENRON's did (plummet, for cause) that the same
thing could happen to nine blue chip stocks any day now."
My purpose here is not to go into detail as to all the enormous,
prodigious and complexly interacting factors of market
behavior, market analysis, stock analysis and investing
strategies. My purpose is to show how easily a novice
student, reader, thinker on so ramified and intricate a subject
can believe he understands a huge cauldron of on-going
interactive factors, on basis of a single "Eureka" experience
in seeing how a single concept or rule applies to one, or a
few, scenarios.
But are over-extended concepts and one-size-fits-all
aphorisms common only to tyros? Sadly, no.
Sometimes prominent scholars can fall into a tunnel vision
trap. All too often, when they do, they are able to dance
around their self-deception adroitly and compellingly by
citing a plethora of peripheral facts and even many examples
where the truism does apply, and to overwhelm those who
would become their student or their disciple by flooding
them with name droppings and quotes from numerous and
diverse sources.
Unfortunately, the proof of the pudding is not in the
profundity and expertise and credentials of the one who
expounds it... nor even in the impressive garnishings, as
it were, of a virtual gourmet preparer of an internally
fallacious, though elaborately decorated intellectual
plumb.
If one doubt it, one may reflect upon the exponentially
mushroomed cloud of confusion arising from the plethora
of contradictory -- and profusely intellectualized
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION on some guesses as to
how evolutionary biology has occurred (and is occurring)
in the real world.
It is as though if by using the more abstract words and
listing the more sources in one's bibliography, and leaning
upon one's academic laurels, and selling more copies of a
book, one's view of evolutionary biology is brought from
the aphoristic and vaporous realm of strained, though
erudite, conjecture of the possible and into the dazzlingly
instantiated probability.
And once another, or several more, comparably
over-intellectualized apologetics by comparably eminent
authors have made their way into academia, a rapid
migration of apostles gravitates to various poles, and
shouting begins.
How refreshing it would be, if there were a group of
brilliant and objective scientists who would seek not to
take sides but to remove the smoke and mirrors from the
arena -- take out the buzz words and abstruse ones, and
cut to the ISSUES that may have been swept under the
carpet by one and all, in the flurry of name droppings
and hypertrophied metaphors -- tease out the core
questions and the lines between what is based upon
hard, direct evidence and what upon clever manipulations
of semantics and persuasive techniques more suited to
propaganda machines than to reduction to scientifically
refutable statements.
Is it the desire of many students of evolutionary biology
to opt for esoterical and abstruse mysteriousness, or do
all truly desire to "get it right?"
I am deeply stirred by this question. And the impression
I have, at this moment, is that esotericism and obfuscatory
motives abound in the field. But this is an IMPRESSION,
and not a judgment, nor a stance, nor a position
supported by hard and conclusive evidence.
Only expert, objective scientists, working together in a
spirit of wanting to get it as right as possible, without
regard for any cult of personality or status, could move
this question toward a scientifically reliable analysis.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Consortium of Scientists
- From: Peter F
- Re: A Consortium of Scientists
- Prev by Date: Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
- Next by Date: Re: Two Points
- Previous by thread: Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
- Next by thread: Re: A Consortium of Scientists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
