Tag Archives: GMOs

Sorry to distract you with this [removable] post. But watch the smear campaign against me in response to the PP paper by Monsanto and incompetent Ketchum copywriter:

It did not hit them that I AM a cancer survivor, and changed “despise those who boast” to despise cancer survivors”. Also look at the fake student evaluations…

https://www.facebook.com/sciencebabe?fref=ts

Here is the offensive propaganda they removed it. As a cancer survivor all I can see this is…. bothersome.
bsrCancerSurvivors

via: Facebook

The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Certainly, mathematics is a powerful tool for gaining insight into the natural world, but Taleb’s “Precautionary Principle” is no Principia Mathematica. It would be overly generous to call it a mathematical argument; “The Precautionary Principle” would be more accurately described as mathiness1. Rather than set out a rigorous argument, it uses things that feel like mathematics – graphs, equations, and technical definitions – to provide a veneer of rigor to an ideological agenda. Critically, it lacks the precision of language and the careful attention to assumptions that lie at the foundation of mathematical reasoning.

Source: The Mathiness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/625403098622730240

Hacker News discussion.

Can the GMO shills send us another mathematician to “debunk” PP? The only 2 flaws Merberg found were HIS mistakes. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/response.pdf …

OUR PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

OUR PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The anti-GMO crowd got very excited that a pro-GMO activist who just graduated with a math PhD “attacked” our paper. It is the first comment by a “mathematician” which seems to be a big deal. Let us discuss here. Please ignore the technical in my answer.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/response.pdf

via: Facebook

The Fermi Paradox and the Hubris Hypothesis

The Fermi Paradox and the Hubris Hypothesis.
The great Enrico Fermi proposed the following paradox. Given the size of the universe and evidence of intelligent life on Earth making it non-zero probability for intelligent life elsewhere, how come have we not been visited by aliens? “Where is everybody?”, he asked. No matter how minute the probability of such life, the size should bring the probability to 1. (In fact we should have been visited a high number of times: see the Kolmogorov and Borel zero-one laws.)
Plenty of reasons have been offered; a hypothesis is that:
+ With intelligence comes hubris in risk-taking hence intelligent life leads to extinction.
+ As technology increases, misunderstanding of ruin by a small segment of the population is sufficient to guarantee ruin.
Think how close humanity was to extinction in the 1960s with several near-misses of nuclear holocausts. Think of humans as intelligent enough to do genetic modifications of the environment with GMOs but not intelligent enough to realize that we do not understand complex causal links. Many like Steven Pinker are intelligent enough to write a grammatical sentence but not intelligent enough to distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. We are intelligent enough to conceive of political and legal systems but let lobbyists run them. Humans are like children intelligent enough to unscrew a computer but not enough to avoid damaging it. And we are intelligent enough to produce information but unable to use it and get chronically fooled by randomness in some domain (even when aware of it in other domains). +
Acknowledgments: I thank Alessandro Riolo.

via: Facebook

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/621124693056192512

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/621329266026917888

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/621672988547616768

Quick proof used to show why systemic risk with GMOs not with bottom up processes. Adding to PP.
It is the author of the article who is a fraud. Missed crucial point on risk of GMOs.
Simple derivation of tail risks showing how GMOs can increase the risk of ecocide by >trillion times.