It's still pretty clear you don't get his ideas, let me help:

"Even experts can't predict everything, so we should build failure tolerance into our systems..."

That's not really NNT's point at all. We shouldn't even design systems that require fragile predicting systems of any kind. We shouldn't waste our time. We shouldn't be designing fragile top down inductive systems in the first place. Ever. Like centralized banks for instance. They are inherently flawed because they don't account for unknown unknowns. And any benefits are epiphenomenal (i.e. fitting the story to the facts narratively after the fact).

"Experts sometimes get things wrong, so your guess is as good as theirs..."

Also not really an NNT idea. He states that some kinds of knowledge (like experience, i.e. empirical phenomenology) are more resilient and less subject to exposure to reality then say top down theoretical knowledge like economics (which is his dead horse to beat but he has a point: there is no such thing as non-theoretical economics for the most part since they rely on homo economicus etc etc etc)

"Experts are actively hazardous and should be rejected because they are experts"

Man, you have a gift I'l give you that. NNT says you should ignore so called charlatans like economists and academics because their knowledge is not tested in the real world and never exposed to the cold light of empirical reality, having been coddled by the university tenure system and the incestuous system of paper writing and publishing. A plumbers knowledge is tested every day when he fixes pipes, an engineer's is tested in his products. An economists are not really tested since we have no way of actually replicating the universe and testing out their little toy ideas. There will always be exigent data we don't have. Hey, theres the problem of induction again!

"...induction...freshman...sun....useless..."

You conflate the word deduction in the same breath as induction so I'll help you out. Induction = using specific events to determine the general theory. Deduction = using general theory to explain specific events. Understanding why induction is a PROBLEM is the whole point. No you can't apply the problem of induction deductively because that is the literally the definition of the problem of induction: recursive. It isn't a deductive theory to be applied to knowledge to reject it, it is the core problem of human knowledge, which is constantly seeking a heuristic or a pattern where there might not necessarily be one. Induction is a trap. You keep falling into it.

"All knowledge is limited and provisional; use it anyway...the lack of firm surety still seems to disturb some people..pseudo expert"

Reflect on above ideas about big fragile systems, charlatans, and induction. Also consider that there is nothing inherently wrong with promoting any ideas (in a Popperian manner) and accusing someone of "preying" for simply sharing ideas is again ad hominem and fundamentally fallacious. Understand and attack the ideas not the person.

Go read and understand Karl Popper and empirical negativism and this whole thing might make more sense and NNT might annoy you a little bit less.

user:	PublicFace
created:	January 24, 2017
karma:	0