Two unpleasant situation, worth naming names because these two individuals are exceedingly harmful to society.
1) The most unpleasant situation was the psychologist Dan Gilbert from Harvard who broke the Brockman dinner party etiquette by shouting insults within earshot, c. Armin Falk University of Bonn, who did some bullshit experiments on bounded rationality, not knowing that I was a trader, shouted in a strong German accent: "I do science ; you just do philosophy". So let me take this into more interesting territory, and express my anti-social-planner views.
When I was warning about the risks of the financial system, I encountered nasty resistance from these types --recall that I blame the academic establishment for this idiotic risk taking."Where is the evidence?
", they kept saying, missing the subtlety of the & evidence of fat tails.
Just consider that if airports had no checkpoints, I could predict, with a very high probability, that a plane will be blown up by some terrorist.
Which is also, from a risk management standpoint, why I can safely predict that any enterprise managed by a certain class of "rigorous" idiot savants using a certain class of certainties would blow up.
compared the body to a machine consisting of animal levers.
"He wrote that God applied geometry when making animal organs, and that since the movements of animals are the proper subject of mathematics they can be understood in terms of levers, pulleys, winding-drums, and spirals, etc.
This to me is a mystery: how professionals can cause harm for such a long time in the name of knowledge and get away with it.PS- I went on a European radio to express my ideas.When asked: what should we do, I replied: just listen to John Gray. It was a great surprise when a few hours later, I opened my mail and saw John Gray's book with a handwritten note from him. Had I written a book about the black swan idea almost nobody would have read it. A man is morally free when, in full possession of his living humanity, he judges the world, and judges other men, with . How about the reverse: you do not become free by acting intransigent; those who are free have the obligation to be intransigent.I leave aside the confusion absence of evidence/evidence of absence--and the misunderstanding of the very notion of "empiricism".It is a fact that in the real world of our daily decision-making 1) (one side is more harmful than the other), so the burden of evidence is one-sided.
You could do better with non-post-academic cab drivers.