<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4661"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1490"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4132"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1244"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5484"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3934"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://groups.csail.mit.edu/EVO-DesignOpt/GPBenchmarks/index.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/04/16/150721854/darwin-survival-of-the-fittest-and-arrival-of-the-fittest?ft=1&amp;f=114424647"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3271"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/03/06/cato_versus_caesar"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-photoshop-makes-us-all-paranoid"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4279"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/p/ooo-for-beginners.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3142/2603"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-–-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2011/05/22/reality-based-journalism/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.dark-mountain.net/wordpress/2011/04/02/the-quants-and-the-poets/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=32066"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2818"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3141"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9404236v1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/03/prometheus-bound-via-hesiod-aeschylus-heidegger-luhan/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/02/data_is_to_info_as_info_is_not.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/03/causality_and_s.html"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4661">
    <title>[1401.4661] Significance level and positivity bias as causes for high rate of non-reproducible scientific results?</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-30T14:23:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4661</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The high fraction of published results that turn out to be incorrect is a major concern of today's science. This paper contributes to the understanding of this problem in two independent directions. First, Johnson's recent claim that hypothesis testing with a significance level of 0.05 can alone lead to an unacceptably large proportion of false positives among all results is shown to be unfounded. Second, a way to quantify the effect of "positivity bias" (the tendency to consider only positive results as worthwhile) is introduced. We estimate the proportion of false positives among positive results in terms of the significance level used and the positivity ratio. The latter quantity is the fraction of positive results over all results, be they positive or not, published or not. In particular, if one uses a significance level of 0.05, and produces 4 (possibly unpublished) negative results for every positive result, then the proportion of false positives among positive results can climb to a high 21%.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>probability-theory statistics academic-culture publishing what's-wrong-with-people-these-days the-mangle-in-practice pragmatism-it-ain't amusing to-watch philosophy-of-science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8438a94f393e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:probability-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what's-wrong-with-people-these-days"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1490">
    <title>[1411.1490] Efficient Representations for Life-Long Learning and Autoencoding</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-12T13:25:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1490</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It has been a long-standing goal in machine learning, as well as in AI more generally, to develop life-long learning systems that learn many different tasks over time, and reuse insights from tasks learned, "learning to learn" as they do so. In this work we pose and provide efficient algorithms for several natural theoretical formulations of this goal. Specifically, we consider the problem of learning many different target functions over time, that share certain commonalities that are initially unknown to the learning algorithm. Our aim is to learn new internal representations as the algorithm learns new target functions, that capture this commonality and allow subsequent learning tasks to be solved more efficiently and from less data. We develop efficient algorithms for two very different kinds of commonalities that target functions might share: one based on learning common low-dimensional and unions of low-dimensional subspaces and one based on learning nonlinear Boolean combinations of features. Our algorithms for learning Boolean feature combinations additionally have a dual interpretation, and can be viewed as giving an efficient procedure for constructing near-optimal sparse Boolean autoencoders under a natural "anchor-set" assumption.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>learning-by-watching machine-learning artificial-intelligence dynamic-fitness-landscapes plasticity reuse formalization the-mangle-in-practice pragmatism-it-ain't to-contradict online-learning</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:42273887ebfb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:learning-by-watching"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:artificial-intelligence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:dynamic-fitness-landscapes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:plasticity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reuse"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:formalization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-contradict"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:online-learning"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539">
    <title>[1310.8539] Temporal naturalism</title>
    <dc:date>2013-11-11T23:49:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Two people may claim both to be naturalists, but have divergent conceptions of basic elements of the natural world which lead them to mean different things when they talk about laws of nature, or states, or the role of mathematics in physics. These disagreements do not much affect the ordinary practice of science which is about small subsystems of the universe, described or explained against a background, idealized to be fixed. But these issues become crucial when we consider including the whole universe within our system, for then there is no fixed background to reference observables to. I argue here that the key issue responsible for divergent versions of naturalism and divergent approaches to cosmology is the conception of time. One version, which I call temporal naturalism, holds that time, in the sense of the succession of present moments, is real, and that laws of nature evolve in that time. This is contrasted with timeless naturalism, which holds that laws are immutable and the present moment and its passage are illusions. I argue that temporal naturalism is empirically more adequate than the alternatives, because it offers testable explanations for puzzles its rivals cannot address, and is likely a better basis for solving major puzzles that presently face cosmology and physics. 
This essay also addresses the problem of qualia and experience within naturalism and argues that only temporal naturalism can make a place for qualia as intrinsic qualities of matter.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy philosophy-of-science hey-I-know-this-guy pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:56f8b8a814da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hey-I-know-this-guy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4132">
    <title>[1309.4132] Attribute-Efficient Evolvability of Linear Functions</title>
    <dc:date>2013-09-20T12:59:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4132</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In a seminal paper, Valiant (2006) introduced a computational model for evolution to address the question of complexity that can arise through Darwinian mechanisms. Valiant views evolution as a restricted form of computational learning, where the goal is to evolve a hypothesis that is close to the ideal function. Feldman (2008) showed that (correlational) statistical query learning algorithms could be framed as evolutionary mechanisms in Valiant's model. P. Valiant (2012) considered evolvability of real-valued functions and also showed that weak-optimization algorithms that use weak-evaluation oracles could be converted to evolutionary mechanisms. 
In this work, we focus on the complexity of representations of evolutionary mechanisms. In general, the reductions of Feldman and P. Valiant may result in intermediate representations that are arbitrarily complex (polynomial-sized circuits). We argue that biological constraints often dictate that the representations have low complexity, such as constant depth and fan-in circuits. We give mechanisms for evolving sparse linear functions under a large class of smooth distributions. These evolutionary algorithms are attribute-efficient in the sense that the size of the representations and the number of generations required depend only on the sparsity of the target function and the accuracy parameter, but have no dependence on the total number of attributes.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>evolutionary-algorithms not-clear-on-some-concepts-I'm-afraid information-theory computational-complexity system-boundary-problem philosophy-of-science oh-dear pragmatism-it-ain't oh-dear-oh-dear</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:dbc056604b65/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:evolutionary-algorithms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:not-clear-on-some-concepts-I'm-afraid"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:computational-complexity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-boundary-problem"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oh-dear"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oh-dear-oh-dear"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1244">
    <title>[1307.1244] Science and Philosophy: A Love-Hate Relationship</title>
    <dc:date>2013-07-21T14:14:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1244</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In this paper I review the problematic relationship between science and philosophy; in particular, I will address the question of whether science needs philosophy, and I will offer some positive (if incomplete) perspectives that should be helpful in developing a synergetic relationship between the two. I will review three lines of reasoning often employed in arguing that philosophy is useless for science: a) philosophy's death diagnosis ('philosophy is dead') and what follows from it; b) the historic-agnostic argument/challenge "show me examples where philosophy has been useful for science, for I don't know of any"; c) the division of property argument (or: philosophy and science have different subject matters, therefore philosophy is useless for science). 
These arguments will be countered with three contentions to the effect that the natural sciences need philosophy. I will: a) point to the fallacy of anti-philosophicalism (or: 'in order to deny the need for philosophy, one must do philosophy') and examine the role of paradigms and presuppositions (or: why science can't live without philosophy); b) point out why the historical argument fails (in an example from quantum mechanics, alive and kicking); c) briefly sketch some domains of intersection of science and philosophy and how the two can have mutual synergy. I will conclude with some implications of this synergetic relationship between science and philosophy for the liberal arts and sciences.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-science pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ce0a11010fcd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5484">
    <title>[1211.5484] Ranking the Importance of Nodes of Complex Networks by the Equivalence Classes Approach</title>
    <dc:date>2013-03-10T21:25:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5484</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Identifying the importance of nodes of complex networks is of interest to the research of Social Networks, Biological Networks etc.. Current researchers have proposed several measures or algorithms, such as betweenness, PageRank and HITS etc., to identify the node importance. However, these measures are based on different aspects of properties of nodes, and often conflict with the others. A reasonable, fair standard is needed for evaluating and comparing these algorithms. This paper develops a framework as the standard for ranking the importance of nodes. Four intuitive rules are suggested to measure the node importance, and the equivalence classes approach is employed to resolve the conflicts and aggregate the results of the rules. To quantitatively compare the algorithms, the performance indicators are also proposed based on a similarity measure. Three widely used real-world networks are used as the test-beds. The experimental results illustrate the feasibility of this framework and show that both algorithms, PageRank and HITS, perform well with bias when dealing with the tested networks. Furthermore, this paper uses the proposed approach to analyze the structure of the Internet, and draws out the kernel of the Internet with dense links.]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-theory social-networks metrics multiobjective-optimization classification pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:55475707020e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:metrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:multiobjective-optimization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:classification"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3934">
    <title>[1111.3934] Model-based Utility Functions</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-16T13:53:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3934</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["As humans design increasingly complex AI agents, those agents will need to learn their world models rather than having pre-programmed world models. And rather than their actions being pre-programmed, the agents will need utility functions to motivate their actions. The contribution of this paper is to demonstrate how utility functions can be defined so that agents do not self- delude. A limitation of this paper is that the demonstration is by examples rather than a proof that some broad class of agents do not self-delude."]]></description>
<dc:subject>agent-based engineering-design pragmatism-it-ain't mechanism-design nudge-targets</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:bd3cffa7a2da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:agent-based"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:engineering-design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mechanism-design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nudge-targets"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://groups.csail.mit.edu/EVO-DesignOpt/GPBenchmarks/index.php">
    <title>Genetic Programming Benchmarks Main/Home Page</title>
    <dc:date>2012-06-05T12:21:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://groups.csail.mit.edu/EVO-DesignOpt/GPBenchmarks/index.php</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["There seems to be a consensus that many GP benchmarks are too much like toy problems, that problems where we expect to find the optimum in most runs are unrealistic, and that new standard benchmarks are needed. Quite a few senior researchers contributed ideas and comments. This page is intended to track the issue and provide a repository for existing and new benchmarks."]]></description>
<dc:subject>genetic-programming benchmarking pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c9445898d91c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:genetic-programming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:benchmarking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/04/16/150721854/darwin-survival-of-the-fittest-and-arrival-of-the-fittest?ft=1&amp;f=114424647">
    <title>Why Is Darwin's Tangled Bank Tangled? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR</title>
    <dc:date>2012-04-21T13:19:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/04/16/150721854/darwin-survival-of-the-fittest-and-arrival-of-the-fittest?ft=1&amp;f=114424647</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Sad to hear him still phrasing this simple truth so obscurely: Not

"Because, on the scale of molecular binding site recognition, say a few tens of angstroms in length, height and width and several other features such as polarity, van-der-Waal forces, and so on, there are far fewer effectively different molecular shapes than there are kinds of molecules."

… but "Because there are fewer stories than there are facts."]]></description>
<dc:subject>oh-stu pragmatism-it-ain't philosophy-of-science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:65048c0c5078/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oh-stu"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3271">
    <title>[1203.3271] The thermodynamics of prediction</title>
    <dc:date>2012-03-18T10:35:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3271</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["A system responding to a stochastic driving signal can be interpreted as computing, by means of its dynamics, an (implicit) model of the environmental variables. The system's state retains information about past environmental fluctuations, and a fraction of this information is predictive of future ones. The remaining nonpredictive information reflects model complexity that does not improve predictive power, and represents the ineffectiveness of the model. We expose the fundamental equivalence between this model inefficiency and thermodynamic inefficiency, measured by the energy dissipated during the interaction between system and environment. Our results hold arbitrarily far from thermodynamic equilibrium and are applicable to a wide range of systems, including biomolecular machines. They highlight a profound connection between the effective use of information and efficient thermodynamic operation: any system constructed to keep memory about its environment and to operate energetically efficiently has to be predictive."]]></description>
<dc:subject>modeling philosophy-of-science information-theory physics thermodynamics talking-about-a-model-is-a-model pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:34ebdb3000b5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:modeling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:physics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:thermodynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:talking-about-a-model-is-a-model"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/03/06/cato_versus_caesar">
    <title>The Laboratorium : Cato Versus Caesar</title>
    <dc:date>2012-03-07T23:09:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/03/06/cato_versus_caesar</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["I could not tell you how many times I’ve encountered libertarian arguments about law that assume that individuals can and ought to use contracts to protect themselves against just this sort of contingency. Don’t worry about users clicking “I agree” to overreaching terms of service; if they truly cared about the terms, they’d negotiate for better ones. Don’t worry about people who refuse to buy health insurance; they’re making a rational choice for themselves. Don’t worry about minority shareholders, don’t worry about franchisees, don’t worry about all the other groups that find themselves on the wrong end of a bargain that always seems to tip against them in the long run—if they wanted better protections, they could and should have negotiated for them up front.

Except they don’t. They never do. And really. If the uber-libertarians of the Cato institute can’t watch out for themselves, what hope is there for the rest of us?"]]></description>
<dc:subject>like-civilization-libertarianism-would-be-a-good-idea libertarianism politics pawns-being-pawned rationality pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e84517c30adc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:like-civilization-libertarianism-would-be-a-good-idea"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:libertarianism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pawns-being-pawned"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rationality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-photoshop-makes-us-all-paranoid">
    <title>How Photoshop Makes us all Paranoid</title>
    <dc:date>2012-03-05T19:34:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-photoshop-makes-us-all-paranoid</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The debate is an old one. New however is the ease – though, I can assure you, editing away objects in Photoshop in a clean way is far from easy – and the extend in which manipulation can be done today. Magic Wand-ing, cloning and gaussian blur are now part even of the vocabularies of a growing number of retirees with too much spare time and an interest in photography. The expectation that a beautiful images ‘has to be manipulated’ is so ingrained that we don’t even pause to question our own paranoia.

But, rather than bothering ourselves with the question if an image is 100% ‘true’ – something that, in my own opinion will never be – we should ask ourselves if adaptations (not ‘manipulation’) are reasonable; if they add or remove something essential to the image. Erasing some zits from a model’s face is perfectly reasonable. Making eyes a little brighter can be legitimate. Blowing up boobs, lengthening legs and shrinking waists is not.

Ethics surrounding photo-manipulation is never so simple as a yes or no question and is not even a ‘thin line’; it is a mine-field in a no man’s land. That careers can be scuttled be being ‘caught’ doing so is sad, in particular because in the trench war between ‘digital compositors’ and photo-purists, there appears to be little willingness to come to a middle ground."]]></description>
<dc:subject>photography art cultural-dynamics pragmatism-it-ain't photoshop authenticity-is-always-fake</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e52ce9ae5069/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:art"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:photoshop"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:authenticity-is-always-fake"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4279">
    <title>[1108.4279] Detection and emergence</title>
    <dc:date>2011-10-10T11:59:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4279</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Two different conceptions of emergence are reconciled as two instances of the phenomenon of detection. In the process of comparing these two conceptions, we find that the notions of complexity and detection allow us to form a unified definition of emergence that clearly delineates the role of the observer."]]></description>
<dc:subject>complexology emergence pragmatism-it-ain't but-soon</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f454b359f980/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:complexology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:emergence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:but-soon"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/p/ooo-for-beginners.html">
    <title>Ecology without Nature: OOO (Start Here)</title>
    <dc:date>2011-10-01T12:54:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/p/ooo-for-beginners.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>philosophy ontology pragmatism-it-ain't which-is-weird</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:61d079e964e2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ontology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:which-is-weird"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3142/2603">
    <title>Odlyzko</title>
    <dc:date>2011-09-29T12:48:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3142/2603</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Gullibility is the principal cause of bubbles. Investors and the general public get snared by a “beautiful illusion” and throw caution to the wind. Attempts to identify and control bubbles are complicated by the fact that the authorities who might naturally be expected to take action have often (especially in recent years) been among the most gullible, and were cheerleaders for the exuberant behavior. Hence what is needed is an objective measure of gullibility."]]></description>
<dc:subject>bubble economic-crisis economics social-dynamics pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a926f364c0bc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bubble"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economic-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-–-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html">
    <title>David Graeber: On the Invention of Money – Notes on Sex, Adventure, Monomaniacal Sociopathy and the True Function of Economics « naked capitalism</title>
    <dc:date>2011-09-13T12:57:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-–-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["At this point, it’s easier to understand why economists feel so defensive about challenges to the Myth of Barter, and why they keep telling the same old story even though most of them know it isn’t true. If what they are really describing is not how we ‘naturally’ behave but rather how we are taught to behave by the market—well who, nowadays, is doing most of the actual teaching? Primarily, economists. The question of barter cuts to the heart of not only what an economy is—most economists still insist that an economy is essentially a vast barter system, with money a mere tool (a position all the more peculiar now that the majority of economic transactions in the world have come to consist of playing around with money in one form or another) [10]—but also, the very status of economics: is it a science that describes of how humans actually behave, or prescriptive, a way of informing them how they should? (Remember, sciences generate hypothesis about the world that can be tested against the evidence and changed or abandoned if they don’t prove to predict what’s empirically there.)

Or is economics instead a technique of operating within a world that economists themselves have largely created? Or is it, as it appears for so many of the Austrians, a kind of faith, a revealed Truth embodied in the words of great prophets (such as Von Mises) who must, by definition be correct, and whose theories must be defended whatever empirical reality throws at them—even to the extent of generating imaginary unknown periods of history where something like what was originally described ‘must have’ taken place?"]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics rationality conservatism David-Graeber anthropology debt Austrian-school takedown pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a28fc2f7eb2a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rationality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conservatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:David-Graeber"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:anthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:debt"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Austrian-school"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:takedown"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223">
    <title>[1108.4223] The set-theoretic multiverse</title>
    <dc:date>2011-08-25T13:34:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view, in contrast, asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with a corresponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I argue, explains our experience with the enormous diversity of set-theoretic possibilities, a phenomenon that challenges the universe view. In particular, I argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for."]]></description>
<dc:subject>mathematics mathematical-criticism looking-forward-to-understanding-this-someday pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8833f49d291b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematical-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-forward-to-understanding-this-someday"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2011/05/22/reality-based-journalism/">
    <title>Reality-based journalism? — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2011-05-26T13:36:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2011/05/22/reality-based-journalism/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Since then, there has been a steady drumbeat of events, minor in themselves, and unlikely to have counted for much in the past, that fit the frame “Republicans=delusion”."]]></description>
<dc:subject>politics media reporting delusion pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:017832226f12/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reporting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:delusion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.dark-mountain.net/wordpress/2011/04/02/the-quants-and-the-poets/">
    <title>The quants and the poets « The Dark Mountain Project</title>
    <dc:date>2011-05-22T12:08:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.dark-mountain.net/wordpress/2011/04/02/the-quants-and-the-poets/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The friction between the quant and the poet could be represented by focusing on a few bickering individuals, or by trying to divide the greens up into Two Cultures. But it could also, perhaps more honestly and productively, be represented as a tension that is present within all. None of us is wholly, or even primarily, rational and analytical, and none of us is quite devoid of poetry either, though it is sometimes hard to find it. These divisions are themselves stories that we, in this particular culture, tell ourselves about how humans work. The quants and the poets are both needed, but I would argue that, right now, the poets ought to take the lead – if indeed that is ever something that poets are capable of. We have no shortage of arguments about numbers and machines, but we do have a great shortage of workable stories. That is to say: stories that don’t just have happy endings, but have convincing plots as well."]]></description>
<dc:subject>politics pragmatism-it-ain't Green-movement sustainability schism activism</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8ff38eddcf38/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Green-movement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sustainability"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:schism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:activism"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=32066">
    <title>Diagnosing the DSM - Dana Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2011-05-15T13:08:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=32066</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[With respect to the DSM-5, I am agnostic about the diagnostic criteria for individual conditions, such as panic disorder or generalized anxiety disorder; in the end, I am not certain that either of these categories capture nature or will even appear in the DSM-6. When it comes to individual diagnostic categories, I would recommend that the DSM-5 take a conservative approach, leaving criteria unchanged unless compelling new evidence suggests that a change would be beneficial. Whatever the ultimate approach to the DSM-5, it is critical that the scientific community escape the artificial diagnostic silos that control so much research, ultimately to our detriment.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>medical-culture diagnosis specification over-specification standard-setting-play pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a55ba73ff8bf/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:medical-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:diagnosis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:specification"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:over-specification"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:standard-setting-play"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2818">
    <title>[1007.2818] Pluralistic Modeling of Complex Systems</title>
    <dc:date>2010-07-28T23:41:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2818</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The modeling of complex systems such as ecological or socio-economic systems can be very challenging. Although various modeling approaches exist, they are generally not compatible and mutually consistent, and empirical data often do not allow one to decide what model is the right one, the best one, or most appropriate one. Moreover, as the recent financial and economic crisis shows, relying on a single, idealized model can be very costly. This contribution tries to shed new light on problems that arise when complex systems are modeled. While the arguments can be transferred to many different systems, the related scientific challenges are illustrated for social, economic, and traffic systems. The contribution discusses issues that are sometimes overlooked and tries to overcome some frequent misunderstandings and controversies of the past.…"
]]></description>
<dc:subject>complexology models-and-modes pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:59e4dbd9dd4f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:complexology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3141">
    <title>[0812.3141] Choosing a penalty for model selection in heteroscedastic regression</title>
    <dc:date>2010-06-19T12:44:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3141</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We consider the problem of choosing between several models in least-squares regression with heteroscedastic data. We prove that any penalization procedure is suboptimal when the penalty is a function of the dimension of the model, at least for some typical heteroscedastic model selection problems. In particular, Mallows' Cp is suboptimal in this framework. On the contrary, optimal model selection is possible with data-driven penalties such as resampling or $V$-fold penalties. Therefore, it is worth estimating the shape of the penalty from data, even at the price of a higher computational cost. Simulation experiments illustrate the existence of a trade-off between statistical accuracy and computational complexity. As a conclusion, we sketch some rules for choosing a penalty in least-squares regression, depending on what is known about possible variations of the noise-level."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>statistics statistical-tests linear-regression meta-optimization nudge-targets multiobjective-optimization pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a2085473faa6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistical-tests"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:linear-regression"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:meta-optimization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nudge-targets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:multiobjective-optimization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9404236v1">
    <title>[math/9404236v1] On proof and progress in mathematics</title>
    <dc:date>2010-05-14T14:25:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9404236v1</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["What is it that mathematicians accomplish?"
]]></description>
<dc:subject>mathematics theory-and-practice-sitting-in-a-tree applied-mathematics theory practice pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0c1cf8fd3217/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:theory-and-practice-sitting-in-a-tree"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:applied-mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/03/prometheus-bound-via-hesiod-aeschylus-heidegger-luhan/">
    <title>“Prometheus Bound” (via Hesiod, Aeschylus, Heidegger, McLuhan) | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</title>
    <dc:date>2010-03-18T16:23:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/03/prometheus-bound-via-hesiod-aeschylus-heidegger-luhan/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Both McLuhan and Heidegger are unequivocally pessimistic about technological change. I wonder if it’s not possible to do further damage to their ideas by blurring their warnings together. I wonder if McLuhan isn’t also talking about reframing thought as a reified and externalized storehouse of “raw material”. Certainly, when you watch digital addicts trying to function in the physical world, you recognize their discomfort with the body (boring!); but also their discomfort with the mind as private, internal, and sacred (even more boring!). The mass Gnosticism of the internet seems more like yearning for release from body and soul. Nevertheless, we remain nailed in place."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation self-definition Prometheus gazing navel pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3b7eee47dc98/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:self-definition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Prometheus"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:gazing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:navel"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/02/data_is_to_info_as_info_is_not.html">
    <title>The Problem with the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom Hierarchy - The Conversation - Harvard Business Review</title>
    <dc:date>2010-03-10T15:31:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/02/data_is_to_info_as_info_is_not.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The real problem with the DIKW pyramid is that it's a pyramid. The image that knowledge (much less wisdom) results from applying finer-grained filters at each level, paints the wrong picture. That view is natural to the Information Age which has been all about filtering noise, reducing the flow to what is clean, clear and manageable. Knowledge is more creative, messier, harder won, and far more discontinuous. "
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy models-and-modes information false-hierarchies pragmatism-it-ain't</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4c8fa3dc4208/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:false-hierarchies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/03/causality_and_s.html">
    <title>Causality and Statistical Learning - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science</title>
    <dc:date>2010-03-07T17:12:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/03/causality_and_s.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The place where I think Sloman is misguided is in his formulation of scientific models in an either/or way, as if, in truth, social variables are linked in simple causal paths, with a scientific goal of figuring out if A causes B or the reverse. I don't know much about intelligence, beer consumption, and socioeconomic status, but I certainly don't see any simple relationships between income, religious attendance, party identification, and voting--and I don't see how a search for such a pattern will advance our understanding, at least given current techniques. I'd rather start with description and then go toward causality following the approach of economists and statisticians by thinking about potential interventions one at a time. I'd love to see Sloman's and Pearl's ideas of the interplay between observational and experimental data developed in a framework that is less strongly tied to the notion of choice among simple causal structures."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>modeling modeling-is-not-mathematics statistics cause-and-effect pragmatism-it-ain't social-sciences scientific-model-fallacies</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:715836f0b26d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:modeling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:modeling-is-not-mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cause-and-effect"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-sciences"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scientific-model-fallacies"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>