Comments on: In Defense of Ignorance http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2007/09/30/in-defense-of-ignorance/ Finding Interesting, Useful, and Beautiful Mathematical Patterns in the Universe Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:24:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mondoreb http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2007/09/30/in-defense-of-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-277 mondoreb Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:22:07 +0000 http://markpneyer.com/wp/2007/09/30/in-defense-of-ignorance/#comment-277 Excellent points! If 1% of the energy expended by "the sky is falling" types was used to dig up a little knowledge from competent sources, we'd have a lot less Hollywood and rock stars posing as climate change experts. /rant off Excellent points!
If 1% of the energy expended by “the sky is falling” types was used to dig up a little knowledge from competent sources, we’d have a lot less Hollywood and rock stars posing as climate change experts.

/rant off

]]> By: Rex http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2007/09/30/in-defense-of-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-278 Rex Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:00:31 +0000 http://markpneyer.com/wp/2007/09/30/in-defense-of-ignorance/#comment-278 I find it ironic that you write an article saying people shouldn't state their opinions about things which they don't totally understand on a blog where your main theme is writing your own commentary on subjects which you have had little, if no, formal training. I mean, you wrote an entire philosophical theory of knowledge with only a few non-major philosophy classes under your belt... In my opinion, I agree with your emphasis on the importance of ignorance, especially in the recognizing of it, but I find no problem with someone forming an opinion from an incomplete survey of all data on a subject, so long as it is couched as such. I mean, theoretically, if nobody was allowed to make any claims on a subject until they knew everything about it, then nobody could make claims about anything. If someone recognizes that their opinion is simply that, a conclusion drawn from an admittedly finite digesting of the facts, there is really no deception going on, both to one's own self and to others. In fact, I'd argue that any scientist worth his salt thinks in this manner, accepting things as, at best, a working model, at worst, a convenient theory. I think that, in science, the working assumption is that all our conclusions, the grand framework of science itself, is just the best approximation we can get to a reality which is entirely separate from it. Inherent in that acknowledgment, also, is that (on some level) the model is incomplete, and therefore wrong (in the sense that it is not completely accurate.) Concepts of "right" and "wrong", as well as the habit of attributing the results of our model to reality, is really just for ease of thought and communication (I mean, its much easier to say "this is what the electron does" in stead of "this is the best approximation of what our physical model of something very similar to an electron says it does") As Lord Byron put it, "Science is but the exchange of ignorance for that which is another kind of ignorance.” I think the danger lies in when other people take their opinions as fact, building their opinions off those opinions. Wouldn't it be cool if we could attack some kind of quantitative measurement to certainty? Create some sort of scale by which you could measure how much faith to put into what someone else says. I mean, even a number theorist doesn't know everything about number theory, but he obviously knows much more than the average person or the math undergraduate. So, lets say the number theorist could give a Level 36 opinion on number theory, the math undergraduate could give a Level 10 opinion of number theory, and the average person could give a Level 2 opinion of number theory. How would you determine what Level a person is on a subject? My thought would do some sort of research hour scale, combined with periodic peer reviews. Think like karate or something. So, for example, to advance from level 3 to level 4 in some area, you need to log a verified 100 hours or studying and proactive research (more studying than research for lower levels, but adjusted towards the opposite end as you get higher), and then have a comprehensive review every 5 levels or so by peers of higher level. So, to reach level 5, you would have to pass a review board of Level 10s or something. You could also say, therefore, that once you have a high school diploma, you are at Level 0 in the world of academia, and when you have an undergraduate degree in a subject, you are at Level 10, giving a rough estimate of 2.5 Levels/ academic year, so a person with a PhD (assuming 6 years of graduate work) has a Level 25 opinion. This could lead to a whole mathematics of certainty. One example that springs to mind is that there could be an inverse square relationship between the level of opinion and the number of people it goes through. You are hearing a level 36 opinion from a person who heard it third-hand? Then, to you, its a 36/(3)^2, or Level 4 opinion, roughly that of a sophomore undergraduate. Or, perhaps, any opinion you hear on television is immediately square-rooted. Anything on Nancy Grace? Cube-rooted. Greta van Susteren? set equal to zero. Another rule of thumb: subtract one for everything time they say "dude", "man", or "brah" That way, when you hear some ass clown talking about Global Warming like he's working for NASA, you can immediately retort "Well, according to my calculations, you have a Level -3 opinion, which earns you a Level 10 ass-kicking." I find it ironic that you write an article saying people shouldn’t state their opinions about things which they don’t totally understand on a blog where your main theme is writing your own commentary on subjects which you have had little, if no, formal training.

I mean, you wrote an entire philosophical theory of knowledge with only a few non-major philosophy classes under your belt…

In my opinion, I agree with your emphasis on the importance of ignorance, especially in the recognizing of it, but I find no problem with someone forming an opinion from an incomplete survey of all data on a subject, so long as it is couched as such. I mean, theoretically, if nobody was allowed to make any claims on a subject until they knew everything about it, then nobody could make claims about anything. If someone recognizes that their opinion is simply that, a conclusion drawn from an admittedly finite digesting of the facts, there is really no deception going on, both to one’s own self and to others. In fact, I’d argue that any scientist worth his salt thinks in this manner, accepting things as, at best, a working model, at worst, a convenient theory. I think that, in science, the working assumption is that all our conclusions, the grand framework of science itself, is just the best approximation we can get to a reality which is entirely separate from it. Inherent in that acknowledgment, also, is that (on some level) the model is incomplete, and therefore wrong (in the sense that it is not completely accurate.) Concepts of “right” and “wrong”, as well as the habit of attributing the results of our model to reality, is really just for ease of thought and communication (I mean, its much easier to say “this is what the electron does” in stead of “this is the best approximation of what our physical model of something very similar to an electron says it does”)
As Lord Byron put it, “Science is but the exchange of ignorance for that which is another kind of ignorance.”

I think the danger lies in when other people take their opinions as fact, building their opinions off those opinions. Wouldn’t it be cool if we could attack some kind of quantitative measurement to certainty? Create some sort of scale by which you could measure how much faith to put into what someone else says. I mean, even a number theorist doesn’t know everything about number theory, but he obviously knows much more than the average person or the math undergraduate. So, lets say the number theorist could give a Level 36 opinion on number theory, the math undergraduate could give a Level 10 opinion of number theory, and the average person could give a Level 2 opinion of number theory.

How would you determine what Level a person is on a subject? My thought would do some sort of research hour scale, combined with periodic peer reviews. Think like karate or something. So, for example, to advance from level 3 to level 4 in some area, you need to log a verified 100 hours or studying and proactive research (more studying than research for lower levels, but adjusted towards the opposite end as you get higher), and then have a comprehensive review every 5 levels or so by peers of higher level. So, to reach level 5, you would have to pass a review board of Level 10s or something. You could also say, therefore, that once you have a high school diploma, you are at Level 0 in the world of academia, and when you have an undergraduate degree in a subject, you are at Level 10, giving a rough estimate of 2.5 Levels/ academic year, so a person with a PhD (assuming 6 years of graduate work) has a Level 25 opinion.

This could lead to a whole mathematics of certainty. One example that springs to mind is that there could be an inverse square relationship between the level of opinion and the number of people it goes through. You are hearing a level 36 opinion from a person who heard it third-hand? Then, to you, its a 36/(3)^2, or Level 4 opinion, roughly that of a sophomore undergraduate. Or, perhaps, any opinion you hear on television is immediately square-rooted. Anything on Nancy Grace? Cube-rooted. Greta van Susteren? set equal to zero. Another rule of thumb: subtract one for everything time they say “dude”, “man”, or “brah”

That way, when you hear some ass clown talking about Global Warming like he’s working for NASA, you can immediately retort “Well, according to my calculations, you have a Level -3 opinion, which earns you a Level 10 ass-kicking.”

]]>