보수란 단어가 주는 의미와 느낌이 다수 한국인에게 바뀌었다면 원래 의미의 '보수'를 더 잘 대변하는 대체 단어를 선택하여야 할 것이다. 이것은 정당이 이름을 바꾸는 것과는 전혀 다른 것이다. 언어의 뜻이 달라져서 특정 개념 전달을 바로 잡기 위한 것이다. 그리고 보수가 거듭나는 것은 이것과 별개로 당연히 해야할 일이고. (죄형법정주의, 조갑제닷컴 발췌)
------> 나는 개인적으로 "자유주의자"로 대체할 것을 제안한다.
좌파들은 1900년대 즈음에 스스로를 "진보"라고 불렀다. 그러다 그 단어가 인기를 잃자, 뜬금없이 자신들을 리버럴(liberal)로 부르기 시작했다. 전혀 자유와 관계 없는 인간들이지만, 그런식 식으로 우파들의 단어를 선점해버렸다. 요즘도 리버럴을 우파로 착각하는 사람들이 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
미국이 한국 버리는 옵션 발생은 방지하자
이때까지는 한국이 미 국익과 큰 마찰이 없었기에 북한 핵문제에서 미국의 북폭이란 군사적 옵션은 한국 내전을 고려해 사실상 불가능한 것이었다. 그런데 외교 경험이 거의 없는 대한민국이 주변 강대국 미일중소 돌아가는 상황을 인지 못하고 따로 놀다가 미군이 철수하겠다 선언하면, 대한민국의 미래는 어떻게 될지 아무도 모른다.
현재 미군은 전략적 유연성 기치 아래 기동력이 훨씬 증강된 편제로 바뀌어서 반드시 한국에 지상군을 유지해야 하는 게 아니고 일본으로 주둔군을 옮겨 중국, 북한 압박 라인을 일본으로 변경할 수도 있다. 미군이 한국을 떠난다고 선언하는 자체로 코리아 리스크는 천정부지로 솟을 수 있고, 미군이 떠나게 되면 ICBM 때문에 실제적인 위협이 된 북한을 상대로 마국은 북폭을 전략 옵션에 넣을 수도 있다. 현대에 와서 전세계에서 전쟁을 제일 많이 치르는 나라가 미국이다. (죄형법정주의, 조갑제닷컴 발췌)
----------------------------------------------------------------
조수미(sumi Jo)-나 가거든
https://youtu.be/_YxLPyxK0YU
민비는 조선 망국을 초래한 사람 중의 한 사람인데, 요즘 들어 과도하게 미화되어 있다. 이
노래는 지금 구속되어 있는 박 대통령에게 더 어울리는 노래이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'약 안 쓰고 아이 키우기' 카페가 뉴스에 올라왔다. 그 운영자가 한의사라고 하는데, 한의학에서는 그런 식으로 치료하지 않는다. 한의학이라기 보다는 자연치료에 가깝다.
예방 주사는 개인적으로 과도하게 많이 맞는다고 생각한다. 자궁경부암을 예방한다며 맞는 백신이 그 대표적인 예이다. 본인의 책 <서구의학은 파산했다>에 그와 관련한 글을 올렸다.
---------------------------------------------
경기도 일산동구 성석동 경로당인 섬암마을회관에 걸린 '노인 수칙'. /섬암마을회관
6번은 잘못된 조언. 아프면 가족에게 말해서 알리고, 치료를 받아야 한다. 노인들은 사소한 병이 갑자기 큰병으로 발전할 수 있다.
출처 : 조선일보
---------------------------------------------------------------
베네수엘라에서 끌어내려진 차베스 동상.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
부분의 지식을 일반화 할 수 없는 사례
비선형적인 현상에서는 평균값은 더 이상 문제가 되지 않는다.
그 결과 반응이 더욱 더 비선형적일수록, 평균값이 지닌 정보는 그만큼 가치가 떨어진다.
예를 들어, 누가 하루에 1리터의 물을 소비한다고 할 때, 그에게 하루에 10 리터의 물을 주고, 나머지 9일 동안은 주지 않는다고 했을 때, 그는 죽을 가능성이 크다.
복잡계에서는 사회과학 전체 체계가 와해될 수 있다.
개인들의 편견을 보여주는 심리학적인 실험은 전체적인 행동을 이해하는데 도움이 되지 않고, 또 집단의 행동에 대해 알려주지도 않는다. 인간성은 다른 사람들과의 교류를 전제로 하지 않으면 정의될 수 없다. 하지만 실험실에서는 인간을 고립시킨 채 실험이 이뤄진다.
뉴런들의 작동 원리를 이해한다 해도, 그것은 절대 우리의 뇌가 어떻게 작동하는지 알려주지 않는다.
한 단위의 유전자 배열을 이해한다고 해도, 그 단위의 행동을 이해할 수는 없다.
복잡계 학자인 바르 앰Bar Yam은 이기적인 유전자 학설을 주장하는 리차드 도킨스 등의 이론이 허구임을 밝혔다.
Where You Cannot Generalize from Knowledge of Parts (continuation of the Minority Rule)
나심 탈레브
Let us take the idea of the last chapter [the intransigent minority’s disproportional influence] one step further, get a bit more technical, and generalize. It will debunk 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. For instance we will see why behavioral economics will necessarily fail us even if its results were true at the individual level and why use of brain science to explain behavior has been no more than great marketing for scientific papers.
Consider the following as a rule. Whenever you have nonlinearity, the average doesn’t matter anymore. Hence:
The more nonlinearity in the response, the less informational the average.
For instance, your benefit from drinking water would be linear if ten glasses of water were ten times as good as one single glass. If that is not the case, then necessarily the average water consumption matters less than something else that we will call “unevenness”, or volatility, or inequality in consumption. Say your average daily consumption needs to be one liter a day and I gave you ten liters one day and none for the remaining nine days, for an average of one liter a day. Odds are you won’t survive. You want your quantity of water to be as evenly distributed as possible. Within the day, you do not need to consume the same amount water every minute, but at the scale of the day, you want maximal evenness.
The effect of the nonlinearity in the response on the average –and the informational value of such an average –is something I’ve explained in some depth in Antifragile, as it was the theme of the book, so I will just assume a summary here is sufficient. From an informational standpoint, someone who tells you “We will supply you with 0ne liter of water liter day on average” is not conveying much information at all; there needs to be a second dimension, the variations around such an average. You are quite certain that you will die of thirst if his average comes from a cluster of a hundred liters every hundred days.
Note that an average and a sum are mathematically the same thing up to a simple division by a constant, so the fallacy of the average translate into the fallacy of summing, or aggregating, or looking at collective that has many components from the properties of a single unit.
As we saw, complex systems are characterized by the interactions between their components, and the resulting properties of the ensemble not (easily) seen from the parts.
There is a rich apparatus to study interactions originating from what is called the Ising problem, after the physicist Ernst Ising, originally in the ferromagnetic domain, but that has been adapted to many other areas. The model consists of discrete variables that represent atoms that can be in one of two states called “spins” but are in fact representing whether the state is what is nicknamed “up” or “down” (or can be dealt with using +1 or −1). The atoms are arranged in a lattice, allowing each unit to interact with its neighbors. In low dimensions, that is that for every atom you look at an interaction on a line (one dimensional) between two neighbors one to its left and one to its right, on a grid (two dimensional), the Ising model is simple and lend itself to simple solutions.
One method in such situations called “mean field” is to generalize from the “mean”, that is average interaction and apply to the ensemble. This is possible if and only if there is no dependence between one interaction and another –the procedure appears to be the opposite of renormalization from the last chapter. And, of course, this type of averaging is not possible if there are nonlinearities in the effect of the interactions.
More generally, the Übererror is to apply the “mean field” technique, by looking at the average and applying a function to it, instead of averaging the functions –a violation of Jensen’s inequality [Jensen’s Inequality, definition: a function of an average is not an average of a function, and the difference increases with disorder]. Distortions from mean field techniques will necessarily occur in the presence of nonlinearities.
What I am saying may appear to be complicated here –but it was not so with the story of the average water consumption. So let us produce equivalent simplifications across things that do not average.
From the last chapter [Minority Rule],
The average dietary preferences of the population will not allow us to understand the dietary preferences of the whole.
Some scientist observing the absence of peanuts in U.S. schools would infer that the average student is allergic to peanuts when only a very small percentage are so.
Or, more bothersome
The average behavior of the market participant will not allow us to understand the general behavior of the market.
These points appear clear thanks to our discussion about renormalization. They may cancel some stuff you know. But to show how under complexity the entire field of social science may fall apart, take one step further,
The psychological experiments on individuals showing “biases” do not allow us to understand aggregates or collective behavior, nor do they enlighten us about the behavior of groups.
Human nature is not defined outside of transactions involving other humans. Remember that we do not live alone, but in packs and almost nothing of relevance concerns a person in isolation –which is what is typically done in laboratory-style work.
Some “biases” deemed departures from “rationality” by psycholophasters interested in pathologizing humans are not necessarily so if you look at their effect on the collective.
What I just said explains the failure of the so-called field of behavioral economics to give us any more information than orthodox economics (itself rather poor) on how to play the market or understand the economy, or generate policy.
But, going further, there is this thing called, or as Fat Tony would say, this ting called game theory that hasn’t done much for us other than produce loads of verbiage. Why?
The average interaction as studied in game theory insofar as it reveals individual behavior does not allow us to generalize across preferences and behavior of groups.
Groups are units on their own. There are qualitative differences between a group of ten and a group of, say 395,435. Each is a different animal, in the literal sense, as different as a book is from an office building. When we focus on commonalities, we get confused, but, at a certain scale, things become different. Mathematically different. The higher the dimension, in other words the number of possible interactions, the more difficult to understand the macro from the micro, the general from the units.
Or, in spite of the huge excitement about our ability to see into the brain using the so-called field of neuroscience:
Understanding how the subparts of the brain (say, neurons) work will never allow us to understand how the brain works.
So far we have no f***g idea how the brain of the worm C elegans works, which has around three hundred neurons. C elegans was the first living unit to have its gene sequenced. Now consider that the human brain has about one hundred billion neurons. and that going from 300 to 301 neurons may double the complexity. [I have actually found situations where a single additional dimension may more than double some aspect of the complexity, say going from a 1000 to 1001 may cause complexity to be multiplied by a billion times.] So use of never here is appropriate. And if you also want to understand why, in spite of the trumpeted “advances” in sequencing the DNA, we are largely unable to get information except in small isolated pockets of some diseases.
Understanding the genetic make-up of a unit will never allow us to understand the behavior of the unit itself.
A reminder that what I am writing here isn’t an opinion. It is a straightforward mathematical property.
I cannot resist this:
Much of the local research in experimental biology, in spite of its seemingly “scientific” and evidentiary attributes fail a simple test of mathematical rigor.
This means we need to be careful of what conclusions we can and cannot make about what we see, no matter how locally robust it seems. It is impossible, because of the curse of dimensionality, to produce information about a complex system from the reduction of conventional experimental methods in science. Impossible.
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 naive 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.
Hayek, who had a deep understanding of the properties of complex systems, promoted the idea of “scientism” to debunk statements that are nonsense dressed up as science, used by its practitioners to get power, money, friends, decorations, invitations to dinner with the Norwegian minister of culture, use of the VIP transit lounge at Kazan Airport, and similar perks. It is easier to take a faker seriously, since science doesn’t look neat and cosmetically appealing. So with the growth of science, we will see a rise of scientism, and my general heuristics are as follows: 1) look for the presence of simple nonlinearity, hence Jensen’s Inequality. If there is such nonlinearity, then call Yaneer Bar Yam at the New England Complex Systems Institute for a friendly conversation about the solidity of the results ; 2) If the paper writers use anything that remotely looks like a “regression” and “p-values”, ignore the quantitative results.
탈레브는 복잡계의 특성을 연구하며 계속해서 수학적으로 기존의 환원론적, 비선형적 세계관, 인식론이 오류임을 보여주고 있다. 더구나 그는 누구도 반박할 수 없게 수학적으로 그걸 증명하고 있다.
나는 이미 작년에 출판한 <서구의학은 파산했다>에서, 지금 세계는 기존의 환원론적, 선형적 세계관에서 복잡계적, 비선형적인 세계관으로 패러다임이 변하는 중이라고 주장한 바 있다.
-------------------------------------
출처: 일베
노오란 프랜카드가 쭉
주한미군 철수
사드 철회
평화에는 무기가 필요없다
한미구 처단하자
역적 윤병세
김관진은 교도소로
종류도 많더라.
신호대기중에 찍어서 하나밖에 못 찍었다
[출처] 오늘 전주 한옥마을에서 찍은 사진
----이제 주한미군을 철수시키기 위한 좌파들의 본격적인 선동이 시작된다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
천사들의 나팔trumpet of angels이라는 이름을 가진 꽃이다. 산보를 하다 보면, 동네에 이 꽃을 키우는 집들이 제법 있다. 이 꽃은 낮에는 향기가 없다가, 밤이 되면 낭만적이고 고혹적인 향기를 내뿜는다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
전에 올렸던 내용과 같지만, 동시에 조금 추가된 것이 있어서 또 올렸다.
그리고 탈레브의 책 <스킨 인 더 게임>의 처음 50 페이지 정도가 담긴 원고의 주소.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/introSITG.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
기후변화에 의한 지구 종말론자들은 변화에 대응하고 나아가 문제에 과잉 반응하는 인간의 능력을 과소 평가하고 있다.
Catastrophe and the Climate
The Place of Science in the Policy Debate
By Oren Cass
Science indicates that climate change is happening but says little about how well civilization will deal with it. In my recent article (“The Problem with Climate Catastrophizing,” March 21), I argue that those I term climate catastrophists—observers who regard climate change as an unprecedented, existential threat—badly underestimate humanity’s capacity to cope with change and thus overreact to the problem. Michael Mann’s response does not so much refute this argument as disregard it (“Climate Catastrophe Is a Choice,” April 21).
Mann begins by writing that "rather than assessing the legitimate range of views regarding climate change, Cass marshals a series of fallacies." But he points to no mischaracterizations of climate science in my essay. Instead, he extends a kind of scientific confidence to issues that lie outside of science’s domain. “It is true,” Mann writes, “that the projected effects of unmitigated warming might objectively be characterized as catastrophic.” But “true” and “objective” science describes effects in the physical world; a view of the human consequences of climate change and whether they constitute catastrophe requires economic and social assessments. More strikingly, Mann argues that I dismiss
“some scientists’ concerns about climate change as instances of ‘motivated reasoning.’ But science represents the opposite of that process: as the physicist and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson has put it, science is ‘true whether or not you believe in it.’”
Because “science” is true, this claim suggests, “scientists’ concerns” are beyond reproach. Yet scientists’ concerns about the societal consequences of climate change deserve no special deference. In many cases, after all, such concerns are neither based on the scientific method nor draw on unique expertise. In turn, far from being out of bounds, the unresolved question of climate change’s economic and social effects should be central to a reasoned policy debate.
The problem is less that Mann is unpersuasive in bridging the gap between scientific findings and the possibility of civilizational catastrophe and more that he doesn’t try to do so. (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------
새로운 학문적 속임수
“개념적 페니스”에 관한 엉터리 논문이 고급 사회과학 학술지에 실리다.
A new academic hoax: a bogus paper on “the conceptual penis” gets published in a “high quality peer-reviewed” social science journal
It’s been 21 years since physicist Alan Sokal submitted a bogus paper to a special “Science Wars” issue of the cultural studies journal Social Text. His paper, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity“, maintained that quantum gravity was a social construct, using many bizarre quotes from postmodern scholars to make its case. Almost immediately after the paper was published, Sokal revealed it was a hoax in an article in Lingua Franca.
The “Sokal Affair” inspired a lot of debate, as well as accusations that Sokal himself was unethical in submitting the paper, but I thought it made its point superbly: much of the social sciences and “culture studies” in academia is intellectually vacuous—a repository for dumb ideas couched in bad prose.
Now we have another hoax: a piece on the “conceptual penis” published in the journal Cogent Social Sciences, self described as “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies. Connect your research with a global audience for maximum readership and impact.”
Like the Sokal paper before it, this one also deals with social constructs, but this time the construct is “the conceptual penis”: a transformation of the male genital apparatus into a social meme that is harmful to nearly everyone. You can read the paper for yourselves, and I recommend it so you can see how low the standards of some humanities journals are (this paper, unlike Sokal’s, was peer reviewed by two scholars). 발췌
-------------------------------------------------------------------
무디스가 중국의 신용등급을 Aa3에서 A1로 하향 조정하자, 위엔화가 추락했다.
Yuan Tumbles As Moody's Downgrades China To A1, Warns On Worsening Debt Outlook
Offshore Yuan tumbled as Moody's cut China's credit rating to A1 from Aa3, saying that the outlook for the country’s financial strength will worsen, with debt rising and economic growth slowing. This leaves the world's hoped-for reflation engine rated below Estonia, Qatar, and South Korea and on par with Slovakia and Japan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기