kopasz7

The hidden costs of health care are largely in the denial of antifragility. But it may not be just medicine—what we call diseases of civilization result from the attempt by humans to make life comfortable for ourselves against our own interest, since the comfortable is what fragilizes.

Less Is More

For instance, a small number of homeless people cost the states a disproportionate share of the bills, which makes it obvious where to look for the savings. A small number of employees in a corporation cause the most problems, corrupt the general attitude—and vice versa—so getting rid of these is a great solution. A small number of customers generate a large share of the revenues. I get 95 percent of my smear postings from the same three obsessive persons, all representing the same prototypes of failure (one of whom has written, I estimate, close to one hundred thousand words in posts—he needs to write more and more and find more and more stuff to critique in my work and personality to get the same effect). When it comes to health care, Ezekiel Emanuel showed that half the population accounts for less than 3 percent of the costs, with the sickest 10 percent consuming 64 percent of the total pie.

• Nassim Taleb, Antifragile

When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the "Intellectual Yet Idiot" uses the term “uneducated”.

• Nassim Taleb, Skin in the game

Typical predictionist world view. "Trying to lecture birds how to fly, because we have the Navier-Stokes equations."

This is the same logical error that collapses the economy (eg. in 2008). Trying to predict the world, trying our damnedest to shoehorn it into a reductionist model. And then we act surprised, "nobody could have seen that coming", when a black swan event happens. 99% days were 'following' the rule, one day it crashed erasing all preceding. So how correct is a prediction like that, not 99% in my view. (In face of unpredictability, risk reduction and resiliency is the solution, not more prediction.)

If we want to engage in mental exercises that have no relation to the real world, then sure let's turn to the textbook. Just make sure you don't forget to look up when crossing the road, traffic rules can't overwrite physical ones. In the same vein as outcomes are real, reasons are made up.

(Just as you can find an infinite number of mathematical functions that fit a set of points. You can create an unlimited supply of models that explain an event, yet fail when a new data point is collected. Is the real world at fault then or the model?)

You understood nothing of the meaning. You argue on a textbook definition. Do you understand what tradition is?

Can you not see the difference of evolutionary and arbitrary?

Just because != tradition.

You underestimate how much is (successfully) driven by heuristics at every moment.

And please, keep the formal logic where it belongs, the paper. I studied enough logic to know how infexible of a tool it is to deal with the problems of the real world.

A 'good reason' is a useless illusion if it doesn't lead to good outcomes.

A good reason is not something that follows the form A->B.

Last I checked people don't live in Plato's abstract plane of perfection, but in the imperfect and chaotic reality. A 'good reason' is a terrible one if it leads you or me to ruin, period.

• Why don't you know?

• I don't know.

• Why don't you don't know why you don't know?

...

Subjective. I think it is way worse. Or "to see the world burn", "to make humanity extinct".

Be it a moral or technical angle, there is many worse than "because our ancestors did it this way and we still came about".

That's curiously a lot of text for someone not caring.

The scientific process is not harmful. If that's your conclusion then welp.

What's harmful is the blind belief in science. It is skepticism and exploration that brings new understanding.

But just because we label something science it can still be quack.

And it's easy for you to dismiss old science because you have the current age's perspective.

Evaluate each era on its own terms.

And once again science does work, otherwise we wouldnt pursue it. But the zelous blind faith in science is unscientific to say the least.

Science is good but most often incorrect or incomplete. Otherwise our current science wouldnt have disproved the old.

If you are unvilling to admit that human hubris is just as well capable of much harm through science like of which we had 200 years ago or just 100 then drink from lead pipes, paint with radium and do some bloodletting. Those were perfectly 'safe' at the time, right?

What will we think of todays acceptables tomorrow?

"Because I can"

Can you give a reason though? I guess a child haven't asked you an endless chain of whys yet. By the end of which you can't say 'why' just that 'that's how it is', you've reached the limit of knowledge.

Of course when available knowledge is preferable.