Evolution
Science, Scientism, and the “Intellectual Yet Idiot”
A friend on Facebook points out a wonderful and insightful tirade by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, of Black Swan fame, denouncing what Taleb calls the Intellectual Yet Idiot class. In general, we disapprove of name-calling around here. But there’s something to this.
Who are the “IYI”? They are “policymaking ‘clerks’ and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts.” A key identifying marker of the IYI is an eager credulousness when presented with prestige scientific or science-flavored ideas. The eagerness to believe is a function of concern for the IYI’s reputation with peers.
With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. [Emphasis added.]
Isn’t that the case? For a certain type of individual, well represented in academia and media, trusting in The Scientists to define truth in matters both in and outside of science is a sign that you are a very special person, what Dawkins and Dennett have famously called a “bright.”
Much of what defines the IYI is his attitudes on a range of matters relating to science:
The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.
…
[I]f a social scientist, he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general).
You might have the impression that the IYI are “invading many walks of life” yet they are few in number:
The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and rarely seen outside specialized outlets, social media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.
Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.
Taleb notes a worldwide revolt against the IYI class, by those with “skin-in-the-game” against those “without skin-in-the-game.” But that takes us beyond the scope of this website. Read the rest and you will instantly recognize this completely predictable species.
It’s a great little essay, and seems to be excerpted from something else — I’m not sure what. He links to another chapter where he decries:
…some of the fallacies we hear in psychology, “evolutionary theory”, game theory, behavioral economics, neuroscience, and similar fields not subjected to proper logical (and mathematical) rigor, in spite of the occasional semi-complicated equations.
…
My colleague Bar Yam has applied the failure of mean-field to evolutionary theory of the selfish-gene narrative trumpeted by such aggressive journalists as Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker and other naïve celebrities with more mastery of English than probability theory. He shows that local properties fail, for simple geographical reasons, hence if there is such a thing as a selfish gene, it may not be the one they are talking about. We have addressed the flaws of “selfishness” of a gene as shown mathematically by Nowak and his colleagues.
While that admittedly needs some explication, Taleb offers an always-timely reminder that debates in science are derived as much from celebrity, sociology, class identification, and considerations of personal prestige as they are from science.
That is a point driven home, too, by Tom Wolfe in The Kingdom of Speech. When dealing with Darwinists we must always, always keep it in mind.
Photo: Nassim Nicholas Taleb, by Sarah Josephine Taleb, via Wikimedia Commons.
